PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERS (PNEUMOCONIOSIS)

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour, if he can give figures as to the number of persons, now registered at employment exchanges, who have been certified as partially disabled by the medical board under the Pneumoconiosis Orders; and what facilities for training for alternative employment are available for these men.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I regret that statistics are not available which would enable me to answer the first part of the question. Men who, on account of Pneumoconiosis, are unable to continue coalmining employment are eligible for training under the Interim Scheme for the Training and Resettlement of Disabled Persons.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that there are now a large number of men, possibly several hundreds, awaiting examination and likely to be partially disabled, and since a large number of them are located in West Wales, will my right hon. Friend make inquiries whether training facilities in that area can be provided?

Mr. Bevin: I will look into the matter.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of applications made in the past 12 months to the Medical Board under the Pneumoconiosis Scheme; the number certified and refused certificates; and the number still awaiting examination.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The number of applications received by the Medical Board under the Coal Mining Industry (Pneumoconiosis) Compensation

Scheme between 1st July, 1943, when it came into force, and the 30th June, 1944, was 4,762. Of these 1,328 were certified and 1,168 were refused certificates. The number still undecided by the Medical Board at the 30th June was 2,235.

Mr. Griffiths: Are steps being taken to expedite as far as possible the examination of the men, in view of that long waiting list?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I am doing my very best about the matter. The difficulty is, of course, the medical people, and there is a very large number of cases which, I am afraid, have not much chance and rather clog the machine. On that matter I have sought the co-operation of the South Wales Miners' Federation. I am very anxious to catch up with the arrears.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Do these figures pertain to the whole of the British coalfield?

Mr. Morrison: I presume so, Sir, as the question was in those terms.

Mr. Williams: Can we have the figures for South Wales and for the other coalfields?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know. Perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me about that matter and I will see what can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Reconstructed Areas (Density)

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he has yet reached any decision with regard to the permitted number of houses per acre in reconstructed bombed areas.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): No, Sir. The decision on this matter will depend on the circumstances of the particular area.

Old Properties (Conversion)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, due to the change over to motor cars, there are many stables with lofts over them in private ownership which are at present unused and which with proper


expenditure could be converted into dwelling flats conforming in all ways to building by-laws; and whether he will arrange that the subsidy for private enterprise in housing will ensure a grant being available in respect of houses resulting from conversion of existing buildings.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I can assure my hon. Friend that the potentialities of conversions of old properties are not being overlooked.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the Minister realise that there is a great deal of accommodation of this sort which could be used? Will he give the matter his serious consideration?

Mr. Willink: Certainly, Sir.

Unoccupied Dwellings (London Area)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Minister of Health how many dwellings in habitable condition in the County of London have been unoccupied for three months or more up to some recent date for which a return can conveniently be made; whether he will encourage and facilitate the requisition of such dwellings by the Metropolitan borough councils in order to diminish the housing shortage; and whether he will seek additional powers of requisition to deal with such dwellings in cases where the owner or tenant cannot be traced.

Mr. Willink: Statistics are not available in the form required by my hon. and learned Friend in the first part of the Question. I am informed, however, that unoccupied accommodation in the London area which can be regarded as suitable for the types of persons to be rehoused has already been requisitioned, or is under consideration for requisitioning at the present time. If my hon. and learned Friend is aware of any property which is apparently unused, and he will give me particulars I will have inquiries made. In regard to the third part of the question, I am advised that the existing powers enable the competent authority to requisition in the circumstances envisaged.

Mr. Pritt: Is the Minister aware that a certain number of local authorities have power but cannot proceed with requisitioning, because they cannot find anyone on whom to serve the necessary notices? Will he consult with the Attorney-General to see that that part of the law is altered?

Mr. Willink: I will look into the question of whether there is any misconception among local authorities, but I think my answer covers that point. I am advised in such cases the competent authority has power to requisition.

Private Streets (Making Up)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the unsatisfactory nature of the law relating to the making up of private streets; and it he will consider the introduction of new legislation on this subject before large-scale development of new housing estates takes place.

Mr. Willink: At the outbreak of war proposals for amendment of the law in question were under consideration by a Committee under the late Lord Amulree which had been set up by the then Minister of Transport to deal with the law relating to highways generally. That Committee has since been in abeyance, but the point raised in the second part of the Question is being borne in mind.

Wales (Allocation)

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Health whether he has decided upon the allocation of houses to Wales in the Government two years' programme; and whether local authorities have been advised to arrange and prepare sites for this purpose.

Mr. Willink: The same arrangements apply to Wales as to England. Local authorities have been asked to submit short-term housing programmes and are at present engaged in the acquisition and preparation of housing sites.

Price Control

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to make a statement of policy regarding control of prices of houses offered for sale by auction or otherwise.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir, I am afraid not yet.

Mr. Mathers: The long time taken seems to indicate that this is an intractable problem. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds that he is unable to solve it by way of control, will he pass it back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order that at least the profit might be taken out of this ramp?

Mr. Willink: As I have told the hon. Gentleman the matter is being considered. I do not think I should take any further steps until that consideration is complete.

Ministerial Responsibility

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Minister of Health if, with reference to permanent and to temporary housing, he retains full responsibility for planning and construction.

Mr. Willink: I cannot usefully add to the statement made on 10th December by my noble Friend the Minister of Reconstruction, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Sir I. Albery: As Members are in ignorance as to what the responsibilities of the Minister of Health now are for housing, can he not reply more explicitly to the simple Question on the Paper?

Mr. Willink: The question is not as simple as it might appear. A very careful statement was made on l0th December in another place. My hon. Friend can find a full answer to his Question there.

Sir I. Albery: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, the longer the answer, usually the less the information given?

Sir Herbert Williams: Is it proper to furnish Members of this House with information in another place? Are we not entitled to have it here?

Mr. Speaker: I think a statement made on behalf of the Government in another place can be quoted here. That is the rule.

Temporary Houses (Report)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Health if, pending receipt of the final Report, he will make available to the House any interim reports already presented to him by the Advisory Councils Sub-Committee on Temporary Houses so that the House may have authoritative advice on this problem before it is required to give a decision on the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill, next week.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. I will place in the Library copies of the two interim reports submitted by the Sub-Committee on Temporary Construction to the Central Housing Advisory Committee and also a

memorandum prepared by the sub-committee on the emergency factory-made house and the permanent housing programme which has not, however, yet been considered by the main committee.

Mr. Stewart: Will those reports be placed in the Library in time to enable us to study them before the Debate on Tuesday, and is the memorandum to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred the most recent report of the subcommittee on the matter?

Mr. Willink: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." The documents to which the hon. Member referred are all the documents that have been produced by the sub-committee.

Mr. Buchanan: In view of the interest in Tuesday's Debate and the importance of the document, the provision of only one copy in the Library is not very adequate. Is there any way in which this valuable document could be made more available to the mass of Members?

Mr. Willink: I hoped I was being generous to Members in that I am taking a certain liberty, as Chairman of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, in making available a document of one of their sub-committees which they have not yet considered, but I will see that a number of copies are placed in the Library.

Workers, Suffolk (Rents)

Colonel Burton: asked the Minister of Health what system he proposes to adopt with regard to houses in Suffolk and elsewhere which have been built for workers who now find the rents too high for them to pay.

Mr. Willink: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to let me know which houses he has in mind.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that agricultural workers are asked to pay 17s. for a rural cottage? The wage committee asks for an increase of wages and the circle goes on. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do something to control rents?

Mr. Willink: The hon. Member knows the basis on which the extra subsidy was given in respect of these houses. I will look into his suggestion but, where the cottages have cost more than was anticipated, the decision to increase the rent has been that of the local authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of Pensions in how many cases have pensions been refused in respect of persons discharged from, or dying while, serving in the forces as a result of diseases from which they were free when they entered the service; and in how many of such cases has the refusal been upon the ground that the disease was of unknown or of constitutional origin.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I regret that the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available and could not be obtained without undue expenditure of time and man power.

Mr. Douglas: Can the Minister give an estimate of the number of persons involved?

Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the Debate which took place on Tuesday on the Adjournment. He will get all the information he wants from that.

Mr. Douglas: Not the information for which I have asked here.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR ORPHANS

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Pensions, if he will consider entrusting the War Pensions Committee with the care and administration of war orphans, as after the last war; and whether there is any objection to such procedure.

Sir W. Womersley: I have appointed to my staff a number of specially trained officers to assist me in discharging my responsibility towards war orphans, and I am glad to say that with the present number of orphans the problem is well within the capacity of these officers. It is not therefore necessary to place this burden on voluntary workers, but, if the numbers should unfortunately increase to a very substantial extent, I will gladly avail myself again of the help which was so readily and ably given in the past.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of persons who are

still disabled by accidents sustained prior to 1924 and who have not benefited by subsequent legislation; and if he will give consideration to the inclusion of these in any forthcoming legislation on workmen's compensation.

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that I have no information as to the number of such cases. As regards the future I cannot anticipate the Government's proposals, but these cases will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLYING BOMB ATTACKS

Bombed Property (Looting)

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place for looting of houses damaged and destroyed by enemy action; how many convictions resulted; and what were the lowest and highest penalties imposed during the years 1942 and 1943 and the latest possible date in 1944.

Mr. H. Morrison: From July, 1940, when Defence Regulation 38A came into force, to the end of 1943, 4,927 persons, including 1,505 children and young persons had been prosecuted for looting under this Regulation, of whom 3,281, including 1,421 children and young persons, were found guilty. The highest penalties imposed during the years 1942 and 1943 were sentences of seven and five years' penal servitude respectively. I have no information as to the lowest penalties imposed, but I have no doubt that there will have been some cases that were dealt with by fines or by binding over under the Probation of Offenders Act. I regret that no statistics are yet available in respect of 1944, and the figures which I have given are provisional so far as they relate to 1943.

Sir R. Young: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration making a strong recommendation to magistrates along the lines suggested yesterday that these cases should go to the assizes; and are not many of these people fifth columnists in this country?

Mr. Morrison: We did give advice not out of harmony with the point my hon. Friend has raised some time ago and magistrates are well aware of it. On the other hand, it is only fair to say that


some of this, while thoroughly objectionable, is in the nature of petty pilfering—some of it by children, unfortunately.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the sentence should be imposed on the crime itself, rather than on the value of the things that are stolen?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure about that. We are now getting to the point where, if I am not careful, I shall be telling the courts precisely how to do their own business. If I try to do that, I am sure that other Members of the House will pull me up.

Mr. Graham White: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will use his influence to see that the word "stealing" is substituted for the word "pilfering" or "pilferage," wherever that is possible, having regard to the fact that pilfering is regarded more like a game of cribbage, involving varying degrees of skill?

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that many people who have suffered the loss of their homes are now suffering the loss of everything they possess because of this looting which is going on; and does he also appreciate that it would be much worse were it not for the excellent work done by the Home Guard, who are trying to preserve the people's homes?

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree that the police are doing all they can, but the police are fairly far stretched themselves; and I thoroughly agree that the Home Guard have been most useful on many occasions.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the growing resentment of the public against those who pilfer after bombing attacks; and what further action he proposes to take to prevent such offences.

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Hynd) last Thursday, and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans), yesterday.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider causing notices to be posted in some parts of the bombed areas

warning people against looting? The police, as he says, are far stretched and are not able to deal with the matter adequately. Perhaps, if notices were posted, it might have a deterrent effect.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that a great deal of the looting is done the minute the "All clear" sounds, and that people have to sit up all night by their furniture to prevent it from being looted?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider my hon. Friend's point about posters. But may I say this to the House? I do hope that hon. Members will not give an impression that this trouble is greater than it is. It does no good abroad and it causes great anxiety at home. As a matter of fact, it is limited, is definitely less than it was in 1940–41. I want to deal with it all I can, but we are really in danger of giving the impression that this country is more wicked than it is.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with the penalties inflicted for this abominable crime?

Mr. Morrison: It is not for me to say whether I am satisfied or not. I have given advice to magistrates. If Parliament wants the Home Secretary to run the courts of law, then Parliament must so enact, otherwise I do not propose to do so.

Mr. Pritt: Is the Home Secretary aware that in one well-administered borough in London they were putting up posters immediately after there had been a bombing incident, and that that has already been done for some time? Perhaps he can tell me whether it has had a good effect?

Mr. Morrison: I will try to guess which borough it is, and find out.

Warnings

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement on a uniform system of air-raid warnings and visual signals.

Mr. H. Morrison: I will make a statement on this subject after Questions on Tuesday.

Morrison Shelters (Conditions of Issue)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the type of home to which Morrison shelters


can be issued; and whether all local authorities in the London area make the same conditions of issue.

Mr. H. Morrison: The indoor table shelter is intended for dwelling houses of not more than three floors (including the basement if any) and is not supplied for larger premises. It is designed for erection on the lowest floor of the house and is a danger if used on any other floor. Local authorities have been informed of the general conditions of issue which leave a certain amount of discretion to them, and I have no reason to think that there is any substantial lack of uniformity on the part of local authorities in the application of the conditions.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Home Secretary aware that there seems to be quite considerable variety in the conditions put forward by local authorities? If I forward them to the Home Secretary, will he be good enough to look into them?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, Sir.

Deep Shelters (Night Workers)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he is now in a position to state whether arrangements have been made to allow night workers to sleep in Public shelters during the day.

Mr. H. Morrison: I presume my hon. Friend has in mind the deep tube shelters. There are considerable difficulties in arranging for these shelters to be used by night workers in the day time. Owing to the internal domestic arrangements, accommodation for day time use could be provided only at the expense of a reduction in the amount of night time shelter. I am considering whether it would be desirable to make such a reduction, but I cannot reach a final decision until the necessary information is available from all the shelters, the last of which was opened a day or two ago.

Mr. Sorensen: Apart from deep shelters, has the right hon. Gentleman any advice he can give to local authorities in regard to this matter? Is he also aware that there are some people now, who have no homes at all, and have to sleep during the day?

Mr. Morrison: I will do my best about that matter. I assumed that my hon.

Friend was talking about the deep shelters, but if we get to the other types, I do not know quite how we are to distinguish. The last thing we ought to encourage is a permanent day-and-night population, with people regularly living deep under the ground. If that spirit gets abroad we are defeated.

Mr. Astor: Are these deep shelters fully occupied at the moment? If there is some space still vacant, could it not be used to allow night workers to sleep there during the day?

Mr. Morrison: The whole of the accommodation has not yet been allocated, though a substantial proportion has, and I am glad that should be so because more people may be bombed out and I do not want to be in the position that I have no margin at all, though sooner or later I may get to that.

Mr. Bowles: My right hon. Friend said that the last of these deep shelters was opened a few days ago; does that mean there are no more?

Mr. Morrison: Presumably, if the last one has been opened there are no more.

Mr. Bowles: My right hon. Friend has misconstrued my question. "The last" may not necessarily mean that they are all opened but that a certain shelter was the last one to be opened. Soon there may be another one opened, and that will then be "the last" one. Are they all open?

Mr. Morrison: There is a series of shelters and there came a time when the last one was opened.

Mr. Bowles: Are there no more?

Mr. Morrison: It follows that they are all open.

Mr. Sorensen: Will my right hon. Friend look into the question of shelters in the outlying districts which could accommodate night workers? What is a man to do whose home is blasted, when he is a night worker and has nowhere to sleep?

Mr. Morrison: There is adequate shelter for the whole of the population of Greater London. Of that I am satisfied. If my hon. Friend has any particular problem relating to a certain locality and will let me have particulars, I will have it examined.

Evacuation

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Education if he is satisfied that arrangements have been made to ensure that sufficient teachers are available for evacuated schoolchildren; that suitable accommodation is provided for those teachers; and that married women teachers over 40 years of age are given the option of remaining in their own district or of being evacuated for teaching purposes.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I am not satisfied that the number of teachers who have so far gone to the reception areas is adequate, and I have sent to local education authorities for evacuation areas an urgent reminder of the importance of securing that the needs are met. I hope that the arrangements now made will ensure sufficient teachers for the evacuated children. Evacuated teachers are entitled to be billeted in the reception areas and it is for the billeting authority to find them suitable accommodation, I am sure local education authorities would not press for the evacuation of a teacher to whom it would cause special hardship to leave home.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that there are married women teachers of 50 to 55 who have come back to assist the nation at this time, and who are being pressed, even compelled, to leave home and go to the country?

Mr. Butler: I think that is a rather gloomy view of the situation. I have perfect confidence in leaving this matter to the administration of the local education authorities, and I think that the plans which are at present under consideration will result in the necessary number of teachers.

Mr. Pritt: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements are in existence for conveying from their London homes to their new addresses the luggage of mothers evacuated with children and for meeting the cost of such conveyance; and whether he is satisfied that such arrangements are working well.

Mr. Willink: A scheme has been made to provide for packages to be collected and forwarded at the cost of the Government evacuation scheme where mothers

are unable to make their own arrangements for this purpose. Particulars are being sent to-day to the local authorities, and I believe that the arrangements will meet the need in question satisfactorily.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the establishment of camps to accommodate evacuees either adults, children or both; and whether, where necessary, he will secure tents or tenting from America for this purpose.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. I am making the fullest possible use of camps and hostels surrendered by the Services and other Departments to accommodate old people and organised parties of children with their own staffs for whom this is the most suitable type of accommodation. We can do better than tented camps for the aged or for mothers and young children.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister appreciate that there are many people who would be only too glad to live in a tent for the summer? Could he not make a special effort to secure tentage for this purpose?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir, I think that for the present we can do better than tented accommodation, for old people and mothers with young children.

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Health, if special facilities for evacuation can be provided, with their families, for men who have been discharged from the Forces on account of shock or other forms of neurosis.

Mr. Willink: Free travel vouchers and billeting certificates are available for invalids who can arrange to go to relatives or friends in a reception area; and if there is a child or the wife is an expectant mother, the family may accompany them.

Captain Gammans: Cannot there be a little more elasticity in providing accommodation for these hard cases?

Mr. Willink: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there is a most remarkable degree of elasticity being shown in our arrangements for evacuees.

Mr. Astor: What happens if people have no friends or relatives in reception areas?

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Health the number of evacuees who have been provided with billets in Wales; whether an effort has been made to acquire hostels and camps and with what results.

Mr. Willink: Approximately 30,000 evacuees have been provided with billets in Wales. Close contact is being maintained between the Welsh Board of Health and Government Departments who have freely offered vacant accommodation in hostels' and camps. Such accommodation is being made available forthwith for the use of evacuees.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Minister of Health why, if evacuees are billeted at lodging houses they are not also billeted at hotels.

Mr. Willink: The word "hotel" covers a wide variety of premises, but Defence Regulation 22 permits the service of a billeting notice on the occupier of any premises. This applies equally to the occupier of a boarding house and an hotel.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: That is no answer to the Question. Is it not a fact that very few evacuated children are billeted at luxury hotels? Why penalise those who are in a small way of business for the benefit of big business.

Mr. Willink: I feel sure that local authorities are seeking to billet evacuees in places most suitable for them. I cannot imagine that there will be many circumstances in which a family party would be happily quartered in the premises to which my hon. Friend refers as luxury hotels.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the decision to bring back civil servants to London was governed by the necessity for making room in reception areas for evacuated children; and at what date the decision was reached.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): There has been no general decision of this character. On the contrary, there are still very large numbers of evacuated staffs in the provinces. Such limited returns as have been sanctioned during the last two or three years have been necessitated either by

operational developments or by reasons connected with the efficiency of the public service. They have not been affected in any way by the question of making room in the reception areas for evacuated children.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is the Chancellor aware that his answer is completely different from the one given to me last Friday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who said that the reason civil servants had been brought back to London prior to the arrival of the flying bomb was in anticipation of making room for evacuated children?

Sir J. Anderson: Obviously I shall have to look into that, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the answer I have given is a correct answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Static Water Tanks

Sir R. Young: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the concrete cylindrical containers, depth and diameter approximately four feet, are for fire-fighting purposes; who is responsible for making them useful seeing some of them have been placed in position for a long time; and whether he is aware that wardens and other C.D. personnel are unaware of the use for which they have been provided.

Mr. H. Morrison: The containers to which my hon. Friend refers are presumably the small static water tanks provided for the use of fire guards operating wheelbarrow pumps, which are power driven appliances manned by specially trained teams of fire guards. The local authorities to which these appliances have been allocated are responsible for seeing that the static water tanks are maintained ready for immediate use. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any case where this is not so, I will inquire into it.

Sir R. Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that within the distance of a short walk I found 12 of these containers with no water in any of them, that nobody seemed to know what they were for, and that I asked the Civil Defence and they did not know who was responsible for them?

Mr. Morrison: I will look into that.

Black-out Restrictions

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to make any statement on the relaxation of the black-out regulations during the coming winter.

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the possibility of modifying the black-out regulations during the coming winter in order that factories and the transport authorities may make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the possible relaxation of black-out restrictions.

Captain Gammans: Does my right hon. Friend feel that he can make a statement before the House rises? Does he not realise the importance of doing something better this winter; than we have done in the past?

Mr. Morrison: It is also important that we should think about all phases of it, before we decide what we are going to do. There are a number of considerations. I doubt very much whether I can make a statement before the House rises, but, if circumstances should allow me to do so, I shall be glad.

Captain Sir William Brass: Will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the lighting of vehicles, if he cannot increase the lighting in localities?

Mr. Morrison: That question is reviewed from time to time and, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, material concessions have been made. I will see, however, that that aspect of the matter is considered.

Mr. Granville: Arising out of the answer to my Question, will the Home Secretary bear in mind that we lose an hour on 13th August, and the nights are already getting longer? Factories will require reasonable notice of any change. Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he could give some information before 13th August?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot be sure. There are a number of factors, conflicting in character, which have to be considered. I will do my best. I quite agree that it is desirable to make an announcement as soon as possible, but I do not think I ought to rush it unduly.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S AUXILIARY POLICE CORPS (MEDALS)

Major Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why service medals and bars are awarded to special constables who complete specified periods of service, each year of service during war being reckoned as three years, but not to members of the Women's Auxiliary Police Corps, many of whom have served since September, 1939.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Special Constabulary long service medal was instituted in 1919. As its name implies, the medal is confined to special constables and it is awarded only in respect of service without pay. It would not be appropriate to extend this medal to the war-time police auxiliaries, whose position must be considered in conjunction with that of the other war-time services.

Oral Answers to Questions — (EMPLOYMENT) SCHOOLCHILDREN

Viscountess Astor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have supplied the information required of them relating to the Home Office inquiry into the employment of schoolchildren; when can a report be expected of the result of the inquiry; and what steps are being taken now to deal with the serious cases of employment out of school hours during term time of children of tender age.

Mr. H. Morrison: Local authorities were asked to supply information by the end of this month and about 100 replies have already been received. When the replies have been examined, I will consider the point raised in the second part of the Question. As regards the third part, it is the duty of the local authorities to deal with cases of employment exceeding the hours allowed by the Act and by by-laws. If my hon. Friend knows of any such cases and will send me particulars, I will have inquiries made.

Viscountess Astor: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply? I will send him cases but, owing to the urgency of this matter, will he see that the authorities report soon? Local authorities have the statistics and it is only a question of gingering them up and making them do it.

Mr. Morrison: I will look into that.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE WAR RESERVE (COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds compensation is denied to members of the Police War Reserve who meet with accidents on their way to duty while regular police officers who suffer accidents under similar circumstances receive compensation.

Mr. H. Morrison: The distinction is due to the fact that the pension conditions of the regular police are governed by the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and those of the Police War Reserve, like other wartime services, by the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme.

Mr. Brown: Does the Secretary of State think, because two sets of people are dealt with under two separate sets of regulations, that he should acquiesce in a situation in which events arise of a precisely similar character, and one treatment is given to one set of people and quite another to the other?

Mr. Morrison: I would not expect my hon. Friend to acquiesce in anything he thinks is wrong.

Mr. Brown: But does the right hon. Gentleman think that he should acquiesce?

Mr. Morrison: If I make a change in respect of the Police War Reserve, I shall create anomalies in other Services. There is a particular scheme for the wartime service, and one for the civil population. It so happens that under the Police Pensions Acts, the police have rather different treatment.

Mr. Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that if we never remove an anomaly for fear that if we do so we shall create another, the net result will be massive immobility on all fronts?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL PERMITS)

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will instruct passport officials to issue exit permits to mothers whose children are in Northern Ireland to enable them to visit their children.

Mr. H. Morrison: As my hon. Friend is aware, these restrictions were imposed

for military reasons. I regret that it is not possible at present to authorise any further relaxation of the restrictions than that announced on July i3th in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory).

Dr. Little: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that, on compassionate grounds, mothers—especially those from London and the South of England—should be returned to Ulster at once to their children?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend has forgotten the very favourable reply I gave to his colleague the Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) last week. I think he will find that point was covered.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (BUSINESS PREMISES REGISTER)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions have been issued to local registration officers relative to the registration of electors with a business qualification.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Electoral Registration Regulations which are now before Parliament, contain express provisions which require the registration officer on the initiation of an election to publish a notice inviting applications for registration in the business premises register and indicating how such applications may be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Films

Sir W. Brass: asked the President of the Board of Education what action his Department are taking with a view to the development of the film as a medium of education.

Mr. Butler: My Department, in collaboration with the Ministry of Information, are arranging for the production in the current year of a limited number of educational films. They are in consultation' with the Board of Trade about the use for educational purposes of film equipment which will be released by the Services and by the Supply Departments after the war, and about the demand which will have to be met in the postwar period for new school projectors. The


Board have recently appointed a staff inspector with special responsibility for advising them on visual methods in education, including the use of films. In these developments, the Board hope to have the advice and assistance of the British Film Institute.

Sir W. Brass: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will give great encouragement to those who are anxious to see the use of visual aid in schools, and that the British Film Institute is most anxious to help in every way?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it not the case that what is called the film strip is even more valuable in education than the ordinary film? Will my right hon. Friend see that that aspect is not neglected?

Mr. Butler: I am glad to say that we have already made a great deal of progress with the film strip.

School Playing Fields

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in connection with town replanning, he is calling the attention of local education authorities to the need to ensure the provision of adequate playing grounds for all schools.

Mr. Butler: The need for adequate playing fields is generally recognised by local education authorities, and the building regulations which I am proposing to issue at the earliest possible date after the passing of the Education Bill will set out fully the areas of playing fields which should be provided for primary and secondary schools. It is not practicable to issue a similar early statement to cover the requirements of other educational institutions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning is, however, taking steps to ensure that the public open spaces provided by planning authorities will permit of the necessary playing fields being made available for educational purposes, and planning authorities are being asked to keep in close touch with education authorities in this important matter.

War-Time Buildings and Camps (Utilisation)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in order to make full use for educational purposes of war-time build-

ings and camps which will cease to be needed for military purposes after the war, he will institute a survey which will bring to the attention of local education authorities buildings and camps which can with advantage be used for educational work.

Mr. Butler: There are a number of other Departments also interested in these wartime buildings and camps and their most advantageous use is receiving consideration. I will, however, bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Fleming Committee Report states that a number of these buildings, especially Royal Air Force buildings, are especially suited for educational purposes, and for temporary schools?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Will my right hon. Friend see that he has the first refusal of all these hostels and war-time camps at the end of the war, for use for educational purposes?

Mr. Butler: I will try to see that I have the usual priority with my colleagues in this important matter.

Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Government have always said that the children must come first? Now let them prove it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Milk (Infection)

Captain Sir George Elliston: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider extending the powers of local authorities over milk found to be infected with certain specified diseases by making such powers applicable to all diseases communicable to man by milk.

Mr. Willink: I shall take an opportunity of reconsidering this matter in connection with revision of the Milk and Dairies Regulations. There are, however, practical difficulties in extending the existing powers to all diseases.

Sir G. Elliston: In view of the misleading impression among a large section of the public about the provisions of the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Bill,


will my right hon. and learned Friend issue a public warning that clean milk is not necessarily safe milk?

Mr. Willink: That is a different question.

Tuberculosis

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health how many X-ray installations there are in the county of Buckingham available for tuberculosis patients.

Mr. Willink: I am informed that six X-ray installations are available for the examination of tuberculosis patients in the county of Buckingham, including one at Northampton, which is used by arrangement with the Northampton Corporation.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health what was the death-rate from tuberculosis in the London area from 1939 to the latest convenient date; and how does that compare with a similar pre-war period.

Mr. Willink: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. Smithers: That happened yesterday. If the answer is circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT what chance have I, Mr. Speaker, of raising the matter on the Adjournment, as I wish to do?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not ask a leading question like that.

Sir W. Smithers: Then I beg to give notice that at the earliest opportunity I shall raise, on the Adjournment, the whole question of the treatment and care of tuberculosis.

Following is the reply:

Tuberculosis: all forms London Administrative County.


Death rates per 1,000 population 1935–43 (excluding non-civilians from 3rd September, 1939).


Rate per 1000.


1935
…
·746
based on total deaths and total population.


1936
…
·755


1937
…
·771


1938
…
·704


1939
…
·760
excluding non-civilians from 3rd Sept., 1939.


1940
…
·974
based on civilian deaths and civilian population.


1941
…
1·248


1942
…
1·017


1943
…
·984

These figures represent the deaths of both sexes and at all ages from tuberculosis per 1,000 total population up to September, 1939, and per 1,000 of the civilian population after that date. They do not indicate the trend of tuberculosis mortality in London because, (1) great changes have occurred since 1939 in the sex and age proportions of London's population and (2) medical selection for the Services leaves behind the bulk of tuberculosis persons in the civilian population. Death-rates for separate sex-age groups, which alone can indicate the real trend of mortality, cannot be calculated for local areas for years since 1939 because the requisite populations are not known in detail of sex and age.

Mental Nurses (Salaries)

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Rushcliffe Committee will be available respecting the new scale of salaries for mental nurses.

Mr. Willink: I hope to be able to make a statement on this matter on Thursday of next week, by which time I expect that the Report will be available.

Catarrhal Jaundice

Mr. Douglas: asked the Lord President of the Council whether the research conducted by the Medical Research Council has yielded any information about the causes of catarrhal jaundice.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): The Committee appointed by the Medical Research Council to investigate jaundice has collected much information, but the causes of the disease are still not fully known. Research is being continued.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT POLICY (CENTRAL STAFF)

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister which Minister will be responsible for the central staff proposed to be set up in connection with the Government's employment plans, as explained in Cmd. 6527, paragraph 81.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The present Central Staff (the Central Statistical Office and the Economic Section of the War Cabinet Secretariat) are part of the Offices of the War Cabinet, the cost of which is borne on the Treasury Vote. Future arrangements are


still under consideration; but for the present at any rate the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the Minister to whom Questions in regard to this Central Staff should be addressed. Its services will, of course, be available to all Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — DAY OF NATIONAL PRAYER

Dr. Little: asked the Prime Minister whether the day on which the fifth anniversary of the war falls will be set apart as a day for national prayer, thanksgiving and dedication.

Mr. Attlee: A statement on this subject will be made in due course.

Mr. Sorensen: Will not my right hon. Friend consult Mr. Stalin about the efficacy of this particular method?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Fertilisers

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Agricultural Research Council has yet reported on the use of dried-sewage material on the land in place of imported inorganic fertilisers.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The investigations of the Agricultural Research Council on this subject are still in progress and final conclusions have not yet been reached.

Lady Apsley: Does my right hon. Friend agree to the importance of a decision being made, in view of the many plans being made by rural district councils and those connected with sewage disposal?

Mr. Hudson: We are hurrying on the investigation as much as possible, but it is bound to take a certain length of time.

Fruit Prices

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the consultations he had with the Minister of Food regarding the fixation of prices for plums, he can state why, since the delegates representing the fruit growers were not in agreement with the suggested prices, the matter was not put to arbitration; and if he can give an assurance that in all such future cases where agreement cannot be reached facilities for arbitration will be afforded.

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. I am not prepared to give any such assurance. The final responsibility for fixing the prices of agricultural produce rests with the Government.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very important point of principle involved here? Is it not a fact that he, together with the Minister of Food, rode roughshod over the delegates from the official body, notwithstanding the protests of certain delegates? Are we to understand that they are going to be ignored and denied the right of arbitration?

Sir John Mellor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in one district the Minister of Food pre-empted a non-existent crop?

Mr. De la Bére: May I make a very vigorous protest?

Wheat Acreage

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make an announcement as to the Government's intentions for their future policy of wheat growing in this country, with special reference to the question of whether the existing wheat acreage is to be maintained.

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

Home-produced Meat

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a pronouncement of Government policy as to their intention to replace as far as possible the meat imported from overseas with home-grown meat during the period of the next three years.

Mr. Hudson: I have nothing to add to the statement I made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) on 25th May.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that statement really told us nothing at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANY EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE (TAXATION)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether premiums, paid by a company to insure the life of a director or employee in the company's interest, are now admitted by the


Inland Revenue as a trading expense in the company's accounts in view of the decision of the House of Lords in the case of D. H. William's Executors v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, that when such a policy matures by death the sum assured is a revenue receipt in the hands of the company.

Sir J. Anderson: Treatment for taxation purposes would depend upon the facts of the particular case and it rests with the assessing authorities and the Commissioners on appeal if necessary to determine the liability by reference to these facts. I am, however, advised that the general practice in dealing with insurances by employers on the lives of employees is to treat the premiums as admissible deductions, and any sums received under a policy as trading receipts, if (i) the sole relationship is that of employer and employee, (ii) the insurance is intended to meet loss of profit resulting from the loss of services of the employee and (iii) it is an annual or short term insurance. Cases of premiums paid by companies to insure the lives of Directors are dealt with on similar lines.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in no case will the Treasury endeavour to gain both ways and that if, in a particular case, premiums are not admitted as a trading expense, the sum assured, when received, will not be taxed as revenue?

Sir J. Anderson: I believe that is the position, but perhaps my hon. Friend will put a Question down. It is rather a different point.

Mr. Mack: Would not the effect of that be to reduce the expenses of the company in question?

Sir J. Anderson: That has nothing to do with the insurance company. It is concerned with an employer who insures the life of an employee.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the full text of the agreement reached at the Bretton Woods Conference will be published in a White Paper in time for Mem-

bers before the House rises for the summer recess.

Sir J. Anderson: The full texts of the documents resulting from the Bretton Woods Conference are on their way to this country and will be published in a White Paper as soon as possible after their arrival. I hope this will enable the White Paper to be published before the House rises, but I cannot, of course, be certain that the documents will arrive in time.

Mr. Shinwell: If any difficulty should arise in providing Members with the text of this Agreement before the Recess, will the Government make arrangements so that Members can receive the document immediately it is published, in view of its importance and in order to prevent anything in the nature of a fait accompli?

Sir J. Anderson: I would certainly wish to meet the convenience of hon. Members in that way. I am not sure whether there is not the technical point if the paper is to be published as a White Paper, but I will look into it.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: When the White Paper is published will the House have an opportunity of debating its contents?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend knows that that question should not be addressed to me.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Chancellor quite satisfied that the publication of this agreement as a White Paper will not be taken to infer that the agreement reached by the experts is approved, either by thte Government or by this House?

Sir J. Anderson: I should not have thought that that could possibly arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Overseas Trade

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his Department undertakes any market research in the territories in which it is proposed to extend overseas trade after the war.

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Department's overseas officers, wherever they are stationed, keep the Department fully informed of the changes in market


conditions. I intend to issue reports now being prepared with the co-operation of overseas officers, dealing (1) with the general prospects for United Kingdom goods in particular markets, and (2) the opportunities for particular export industries in all the more important markets.

Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend realise how pleased we are to see him, and does he also realise that we should be much more pleased if we could hear a word of his answer?

Imported Commodities (Bulk Purchase)

Mr. Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to continue the bulk purchase of imported commodities after the war.

Mr. Johnstone: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement on this subject made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 22nd June in the course of the Debate on Employment Policy, copy of which I am sending to him. To this there is nothing to add.

Mr. Parker: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile that statement with the speeches he himself has made recently outside the House?

Mr. Johnstone: There is nothing whatever irreconcilable between the two.

South America

Mr. Hogg: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken in 1944 to promote British trade with South America.

Mr. Johnstone: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, with the demands of the war still heavy upon us, there is little scope for the promotion of current export trade with South America. The work of preparing for the post-war period is, however, being actively pursued.

Mr. Hogg: Would my right hon. Friend let the House know what the active pursuance of future trade in South America after the war consists in? What is, in fact, being done?

Mr. Keeling: Could my right hon. Friend explain the difference between active pursuit and any other kind of pursuit?

Mr. Johnstone: Active pursuit is more active than inactive pursuit.

Mr. Hogg: May I have an answer to my supplementary?

Mr. Granville: rose——

Mr. Speaker: There is a supplementary question to be answered.

Mr. Granville: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to put a Question on the Paper in order to secure the attendance of a Minister, so that he may be given the welcome that the right hon. Gentleman has been given to-day?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question of Order. As far as I am concerned, I know nothing of the intentions of Members in putting Questions on the Paper. There is a supplementary to be answered.

Mr. Johnstone: In reply to the supplementary of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), to detail the whole of the steps that are being taken to develop trade with South America would involve not an answer to a question, but a Debate of a day or two.

Mr. Hogg: Can we have a White Paper?

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that exporters depend entirely on getting pre-war statistics of export trade; and can he give an assurance that if these figures are not available in his Department, he will see that his staff is sufficiently augmented to enable them to be computed and made available?

Mr. Johnstone: The pre-war figures are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Women War Correspondents

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Secretary of State for War how many full-time British women war correspondents have been accredited to S.H.A.E.F.; how many Dominion and how many American.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am informed that 18 British, 10 Dominion and 22 American women correspondents have been accredited to Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force. In this connection, I would refer to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 1st February. British women correspondents are in no


way restricted in this country, but in theatres of war they are limited to special facilities which do not include covering the operational activities of front line troops.

Miss Ward: Are the special facilities different from those given to Dominion and American women war correspondents?

Mr. Henderson: I think I had better have notice of that question.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask what these ladies are, in fact, doing as we do not find any trace of their activities?

Viscountess Astor: The hon. Member does not look for them.

Lance Rank (Reversion)

Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in a unit, whose name has been communicated to him, certain lance-sergeants have been compelled to revert to a lower grade and lose pay through no fault of their own; and whether he will arrange that they shall retain their appointments and pay pending absorption in the present establishment.

Mr. A. Henderson: The appointment of lance-sergeant is in the nature of a paid probationary appointment liable to relinquishment at any time. In the unit mentioned, and in some other units of the same type the number of such appointments has been found to be excessive and reductions have been made to bring the numbers down to the scale considered applicable. In these circumstances, I regret that it is not possible to permit the non-commissioned officers concerned to retain their appointments in excess of the approved scale, although I would agree that such reversion is not due to any fault on their part.

Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that these non-commissioned officers are doing exactly the same duties as they were doing under the former establishment? That being so, is it not rather unfortunate that they should have to lose their rank?

Mr. Henderson: I should like to make inquiries into that point.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that this kind of thing is unfair to the

men, and that while he says that it does other people who do not know the facts think that it does? Will he not keep the men in their ranks?

Mr. Henderson: I cannot give an undertaking to that effect.

Mr. John Dugdale: Is not this an example of the War Office getting work at cut rates?

Mr. Henderson: That is not the fact.

Requisitioned Houses, Northern Ireland

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the great shortage of houses in Northern Ireland, he will derequisition every requisitioned house no longer required, or likely to be required, for the accommodation of the military.

Mr. A. Henderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 25th July. That reply outlined the general policy followed in these cases by the War Department.

Dr. Little: As the matter is one of the greatest urgency in Northern Ireland, will not my hon. and learned Friend de-requisition houses by every means in his power?

Mr. Henderson: I can assure my hon. Friend that a considerable number of houses in Northern Ireland have already been de-requisitioned and considerably more will be as soon as possible.

Dr. Little: A great many more could be de-requisitioned.

Soft Drinks (Supplies)

Mr. Murray: asked the Secretary of State for War what other drinks are available for soldiers in Normandy, or on any of the other fronts, who have no desire to drink beer; and whether they can have their beer value in some other form, such as chocolates or cigarettes.

Mr. A. Henderson: N.A.A.F.I. has already shipped considerable quantities of cordials (including orange, lemon, and fruit squashes) to Normandy, and it is hoped that mineral water will shortly be produced locally. In other theatres, arrangements are also made for the provision of soft drinks. There is no fixed ration of beer for each man, and the proposal in the second part of my hon.


Friend's Question would be administratively unworkable, particularly in areas where the troops are engaged in active operations.

Sir A. Southby: Will the Minister bring to the notice of the troops in Normandy who have no desire to drink beer, the danger they are in from some of the drinks brewed in Normandy from apples?

Mr. Mathers: Are these soft drinks available for all ranks or are they reserved for officers?

Mr. Henderson: They are available for all ranks.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (RAILWAY ACCOMMODATION)

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for War whether first-class carriages are reserved on British railways for German officer prisoners.

Mr. A. Henderson: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) on 20th July.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I do not know where the Minister got that information, but may I ask whether he is aware that on the train leaving Euston at 10.25 on 6th July, a whole first-class carriage was reserved for a German prisoner officer and his escort of three, and that first-class and third-class passengers in consequence had to stand in the corridor outside? Does the Minister approve of a policy which gives priority to Germans over Britishers?

Mr. Henderson: In regard to the latter part of the question, I have already indicated that it is the policy of the Department that German officer prisoners shall travel third-class. In regard to the first part, I will certainly look into the actual incident that occurred.

Mr. Keeling: Have the Army authorities power, which they do in fact exercise, to remove British civilians from railway carriages in order to make room for German prisoners?

Mr. Henderson: I would like notice of that question.

Colonel Burton: Is the Minister not aware that this process has already been carried out on the London and North Eastern Railway, on a number of occasions?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (POLITICAL SITUATION)

Mr. Parker: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any recent information about developments in the Greek political situation and in particular in respect of the trials now proceeding of those concerned in the mutinies in the. Greek Forces last April.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): His Majesty's Government have frequently emphasised their wish to see the establishment of a Greek Government which would be fully representative of all patriotic opinion in Greece. In May last an agreement was reached at a Conference of Greek Delegates in the Lebanon, which was subscribed to by the duly authorised representatives of all the principal Greek political parties, including E.A.M. and the other Left Wing parties. The Lebanon Agreement held out every promise that such a Government would be formed and M. Papandreou has since made every effort to put the Lebanon Agreement into effect. In this task he has received and will continue to receive the full support of His Majesty's Government.
The leaders of E.A.M. in Greece have, however, declined to ratify the signatures of their representatives at the Lebanon Conference or to appoint Ministers to the posts in the Government which it was agreed should be reserved for them. Instead they have put forward fresh and unreasonable demands, the effect of which would be to give them control over all the guerilla forces in Greece and over the Greek Army abroad and a representation in the Greek Government out of all proportion to their actual strength. His Majesty's Government do not consider that at the present time any Greek political party which has the interests of Greece sincerely at heart can justify a refusal to join a National Government or to make conditions of the nature put forward by E.A.M.
Moreover, information received leaves His Majesty's Government in no doubt that an overwhelming majority of the Greek people welcomed the Lebanon Agreement and support M. Papandreou in his efforts to form a democratic and representative Government. His Majesty's Government are also satisfied that a large proportion of the members of E.A.M. are opposed to the obstructive and intransigent


attitude adopted by certain of their leaders. His Majesty's Government still hope that, even at this late hour, E.A.M. will join the Greek Government on the basis of the Lebanon Agreement and thus give effect to the desire for unity which they have so often proclaimed. If they persist in their refusal to do so, they must be held responsible for the failure to achieve unity of Greek policy and arms at this, the supreme moment of the common struggle.
I wish to add a few words about the courts-martial now being held in Egypt to try those concerned in the Greek mutinies of last April. It has been suggested that these courts-martial form a serious bar to unity. It was, however, agreed at the Lebanon Conference by the representatives of all parties that courts-martial should be set up and the Greek Government were therefore under an obligation to do so. The trials are still in progress and, although a number of death sentences have been passed, none have been executed. No final decision can be reached until all the trials have been completed, but His Majesty's Government have advised the Greek Government that in their view the achievement of Greek unity should be the paramount consideration. I am confident that the Greek Government share this view, for M. Papandreou himself has made every possible effort to achieve unity and this continues to be the basis of his policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE REGULATIONS (LAYING)

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state what steps, if any, will be required, to rectify the position relating to the Regulations which were not laid before the House at the proper time.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary when he will be able to make a full statement upon the validity or invalidity of action taken under the authority of the Regulations, where the statutory procedure has not been complied with.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Government have decided to submit to the House without any delay a Bill of Indemnity. I do not

propose at this moment to discuss the legal position, but after consulting my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I am clear that on general and constitutional grounds the course which I have stated is the proper one. It is in my view right that Parliament should be given a proper opportunity of dealing with the matter on a Parliamentary Bill.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: When will the text of the Bill be available to Members?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot be certain, but I hope that it will be available to-morrow.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is it proposed to proceed with this Bill before the Recess?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be dealing with that matter when he makes a statement on Business.

Sir Irving Albery: Is the right hon. Gentleman seized of the fact that it still remains a matter of great importance whether these Draft Regulations, having been put into operation without the proper procedure, are legally in order or not? Surely that is a matter which must be cleared up.

Mr. Morrison: One of the purposes of the Bill, as I have said, is to provide an indemnity, but I do not think it would be convenient to discuss legal points at this moment. The Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General will be available to the House when the Bill is considered.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make clear whether these Regulations are still in operation now, or are suspended until the Bill is brought forward?

Mr. Morrison: That is asking the question another way round. We can discuss these matters on the Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the Business for next week?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir.
Tuesday, 1st August—We shall, as a result of the statement which my right hon. Friend has just made and as a matter of urgency, ask the House to agree to pass


a Bill of Indemnity relating to the Fire Service Regulations, through all its stages, so that it may be sent to another place and receive the Royal Assent before the Adjournment. The House will understand that the Government desire to deal with this matter urgently and as rapidly as possible.
Afterwards, we shall take the Second Reading of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution, as well as the Motion to approve the Electoral Registration Regulations, which we are anxious to proceed with also.
Wednesday, 2nd August—Committee and Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill when, as I have already announced, the Prime Minister will make a statement on the war situation, upon which a Debate will arise.
Thursday, 3rd August—The House will adjourn for the Summer Recess. I ought to add that to-morrow we shall ask the House to take the Motion for an Address relating to the Pensions (Increase) Act (Extension) Order.

Mr. Greenwood: May I raise a point about Tuesday's Business? If the first Bill before the House takes up time, will arrangements be made for an extension of time by a suspension of the Rule, on the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I think we shall have to do that.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this first Bill of the Home Secretary's may take up a considerable length of time, and that even with an extension of an hour or two the other matter, which is no less important—it is terribly important—cannot be dealt with properly? A question affecting the housing of the people ought not to be taken at a time when it cannot properly be dealt with, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he decides to proceed or not to proceed with the Housing Bill, to see how far the Home Secretary's Bill progresses. It would not be fair to have an extension if the Home Secretary's Bill occupied until a late hour. Before the right hon. Gentleman commits himself about going on with this Housing Bill on Tuesday, will he see how Tuesday's Business proceeds?

Mr. Eden: I am, of course, conscious of the importance of the Housing Bill. One cannot pronounce now, but I did have some hopes that my right hon. Friend's Bill would not take a long time. We shall see how we proceed. I do not want to ask the House for anything unreasonable, but at the same time I would like to get both items of Business disposed of if I can.

Mr. Buchanan: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to take the Housing Bill at a late hour. It is not fair to start a discussion on one of the most important Bills before the House late in the day. Do not treat housing as a very second-rate issue compared with other matters.

Mr. Eden: I agree that it is not of second-rate interest, but it is urgent. I would not like to pledge myself as to time, but it would be unreasonable to take it at a late hour. It would be best to see how we get on with the other Bill.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: With the object of saving time on Tuesday, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the issue of a White Paper, or will the Home Secretary, in presenting this Bill, make quite clear what effect on the subject these illegal orders have had, so that there shall be no doubt in the minds of hon. Members in the first place, and discussion may be curtailed?

Mr. Eden: I think that point will be kept in mind. Either my right hon. Friend or the Attorney-General will deal with it.

Mr. Loftus: Will an opportunity be given, as soon as possible after the reassembly of the House, to discuss the White Paper on the Bretton Woods Conference? May I further ask, in view of the drastic Amendments made in the experts' plan, and the fact that we have never discussed the International Bank, whether. we shall have two days for that discussion?

Mr. Eden: I certainly could not give any undertaking of that kind now. I think hon. Members might well prefer to study the document before they decide on that, Certainly an opportunity for debate will be given.

Mr. Shinwell: On which date does the right hon. Gentleman propose to move the formal Motion for the Adjournment?

Mr. Eden: I thought of doing so on Wednesday.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: As the question of flying bombs is of such vital interest to those people who reside in Southern England, and as that question cannot be adequately debated at Question Time, may I ask whether the Leader of the House is aware that when an open Debate started yesterday on one aspect of the flying bomb attacks——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is not asking a question. He is referring to what has already happened.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I wished to ask a question on Business, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member had better confine himself to that, and not refer to what has happened previously.

Sir A. Southby: May I ask whether there will be any statement on the issue of the 1939–43 Star before the House rises? The Prime Minister did hold out the hope that he would make a statement before the rising of the House for the Summer Recess and it is a matter about which the Services feel very strongly.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have a word with the Prime Minister about it, and I will say something next week.

Mr. Stokes: Reverting to the question raised by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) on the Bretton Woods Conference, will the Leader of the House bear in mind the complete contempt with which the experts have treated the views of this House as expressed in the monetary Debate, and that what they have done, in fact, is to pledge us to return to gold?

Mr. Eden: I do not think the hon. Member is justified in a criticism of that kind. The experts have done their work, and I think his criticism might well await the Government's views on the matter.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Will the Motion for the Adjournment be the first Business on Wednesday, and if there is a Debate on it, will that leave sufficient time to enable the Prime Minister to make his statement and for a possible Debate on the war situation to follow?

Mr. Eden: Tuesday, as hon. Members have observed, is very full. On Wednesday, I hope that the Adjournment will receive unanimous assent.

Miss Ward: I had an idea we had been promised the day to discuss shipping and shipbuilding. Could my right hon. Friend say what is to happen about that?

Mr. Eden: I understand it has been agreed that the Debate will be taken a little later, when we come back.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I would like to ask on Business, with reference to the Adjournment Motion that will be coming at the end of next week, whether the Government would have any objection if, on that occasion, there was an open Debate on the question of the flying bomb? I should like to have the Government's view on that. I am asking that in view of the fact that yesterday it was stated that this House had indicated that they did not want to have any such open Debate. I have been very careful to go through all the reports, and I find that the House made no such decision. On the contrary they said that there should not be a Secret Debate on the flying bomb.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member has asked me about the Adjournment next Thursday. The subjects have already been selected, and I am afraid there would not be an opportunity.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I am asking the Leader of the House whether, at any time in the future, the Government would have any objection to having such a Debate.

Mr. Eden: I am certainly not going into these hypothetical questions. It is Mr. Speaker who decides on the questions for discussion next Thursday.

Commander King-Hall: In view of the congestion of Business on Tuesday, and the importance of the Housing Bill, is it out of the question that the Home Secretary's Bill should be taken on Monday?

Mr. Eden: I think it is. It would be difficult at this stage to make such an arrangement.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Would it not be possible to reverse the Business on Tuesday, and so meet the wishes of the House?

Mr. Eden: We have thought about it but I really think the order I have proposed is the right order.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I want to ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of procedure. I understand, having looked at the rules and regulations of this House, that one is unable to repeat a Debate in the same Session. Could the subject of a Debate that has been held in Secret Session be subsequently discussed in open Session? Would that come under the heading of repetition? I have looked through Erskine May very carefully, but on this matter I see that he keeps a discreet silence.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, to ask me a question of that sort without notice, is really acting very improperly. I must not be asked a question like that without notice.

Mr. Cocks: Has it ever been the practice of the House, on the Motion for the Adjournment, that the Debate should be confined to certain subjects selected beforehand? Cannot any Member raise any subject he wishes?

Mr. Speaker: That is true, but certain hon. Members catch my eye, and I like to indicate if I can, in advance, those who are likely to do so. Otherwise any hon. Member is perfectly entitled to raise anything he chooses, if he catches my eye.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I realise, Mr. Speaker, that I ought not to have asked that question without notice, and I wish to apologise for having done so. It arose because of what had been said previously to-day. I wonder, though, if you would be good enough, on some subsequent occasion, to give me a Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will submit his question in writing, and I may be able to give him a considered answer.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Bill, without Amendment.

Anglesey County Council (Water, etc.) Bill.

Middlesex County Council Bill, with Amendments.

Gillingham Corporation Bill [Lords].

Wisbech Corporation Bill [Lords].

Loughborough Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to make provision as to the immunities privileges and capacities of international organisations of which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and foreign governments are members; to confer immunities and privileges on the staffs of such organisations and representatives of member governments and in respect of premises and documents of such organisations; to remove doubts as to the extent to which representatives of foreign Powers attending international conferences and the staffs of such representatives are entitled to diplomatic immunities; to amend the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1941; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill [Lords.]

BILL REPORTED

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WORKINGTON) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Ordered: "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Butler.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(Transfer of property and functions to Minister and construction of Acts and documents.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 14, at end, insert:
except where the context otherwise requires.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Central Advisory Councils.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line i8, after the first "Minister," insert:
but as to one-third of the members the Minister shall make the appointments after consultation alternately with the President of the Board of Trade and with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I have put a Motion to this effect on the Order Paper, and I think it behoves me to give one or two arguments in support of it. Naturally the Government have considered very carefully the issue raised in this Amendment. The Amendment requires that the Minister of Education shall make appointments to his Advisory Councils after consultation with two of his colleagues in the Government. The first difficulty in the way of accepting this Amendment, on which the Government view was clearly stated in another place, is that if I were to pick out two

of my colleagues for the purpose of consultation many of my other colleagues who are very much interested in education might feel aggrieved that I had not also taken them into consultation. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Home Security are very closely concerned with the children and young people of this country, and there are several matters upon which they have very strong views, and I should not like to think that any of my colleagues should feel that a slur had been cast on them if they were not consulted. The matter is made even more complicated by the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and I have set up a special committee to deal with agricultural education. Therefore it seems otiose that I should be obliged to consult my colleagues before setting up Advisory Councils. In fact, without saying too much, this doctrine of setting down in a Bill that I should consult two of my colleagues is not, in the Government's opinion, the proper view to take of Government responsibility as a whole.
I should, however, say to hon. Members and other persons outside who are interested in this subject that the Motion to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment does not mean that the Government are not very much interested in technical education. The object of the mover of the Amendment in another place was to ensure that the Councils had upon them people interested in the technical aspect of education. It is the intention of the Government to put upon these Councils persons interested in technical matters and to consult such bodies or persons as are interested in order that technical education may be given every support. I go further by saying that this Bill will not operate properly unless we stress the importance of technical education. It is only if we can get our industries going properly—our export trade and everything else—that we shall be able to find the funds to finance these Measures, and without technical education we should be nowhere. I therefore repeat what I said during the Committee stage and have said on other occasions, that it is our desire that technical education should be given every possible opportunity to develop under this Bill, and that I shall consult persons in the country and take all possible care to ensure that these Advisory Councils are properly constituted.


Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Stages and purposes of statutory system of education.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 32, at end, insert "spiritual."

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It has been felt by the Government that the introduction of this word "spiritual" is the best method to adopt of meeting those who feel that the definition in Clause 7 does not include a reference to the various portions of the Bill which deal with religious education. "Spiritual" is the most satisfactory word, and the word which has received the most general support.

Professor Gruffydd: I hope that this House will not agree with the Lords on this matter. The word "spiritual" is either quite innocuous and meaningless or it has a definite meaning. If it is innocuous there is no need to insert it, and if it has a meaning at all it is a meaning that a large part of the community would object to see expressed in an Act of Parliament. We have heard a lot of talk about the balance which the President of the Board of Education has managed to achieve among the different sections of the community, and to insert the word "spiritual," the most numinous word one could possibly find, into an Act of Parliament will entirely upset any understanding dependent on that balance. I would explain what I mean by that.
There are large sections of the religious community in this country who believe that the schools should teach the people religion. They are generally either Catholics or Anglicans. We have made provision for them; they have their own voluntary schools and we have met them very generously in this matter and have provided means by which they can follow the dictates of their own conscience. But there is also a very large section of the religious population of the country, Non-conformists and people not attached to any Church, who object to the very idea that the State, and especially the local education authorities, should be put in charge of the spiritual teaching of the country. I hope that what I regard as an

injustice, and even an impertinence, to these people will not be allowed, and I think we should disagree with the Lords in this matter. Before I sit down I should like to say that there is a popular cliché of thought going round among the very same people who at the end of the last war were all for licence and irreligion. Now they are all hot and bothered about religion. They are no more religious now than they were then.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for accepting this Amendment and I am astonished at the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). The whole structure and background of this Bill are based upon the deep religious convictions of the people of this country, of whatever denomination they may be. As was said during the earlier proceedings on the Bill the President has conferred a great endowment upon the public life of this country by handling the religious aspect in education in the way he has done, and I hope the House will agree with the Lords Amendment.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Duty of local education authorities to secure provision of primary and secondary schools.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 19, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This paragraph is no longer necessary, in view of the new Clause to be inserted before Clause 72.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(County schools, auxiliary schools, nursery schools, and special schools.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 8, leave out "auxiliary" and insert "voluntary."

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It has been thought that "voluntary" is a more suitable word to use throughout


the Bill in place of the word "auxiliary" in reference to schools. This decision will involve a great many consequential Amendments, which I think we may take in our stride.

Mr. Tinker: I should like to say a word or two on this Amendment. The President has sent out some notes on this matter and I have tried to study them and to find out what is the difference between "auxiliary" and "voluntary." I also came across the word "pejorative." I did not know the meaning of it and so I consulted a dictionary. I am satisfied that the change proposed will be helpful, and though I have no feeling for the Lords at all, and think the House of Lords ought to be non-existent, as a little sop to them I shall take no objection to this Amendment which they have proposed.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I am sorry that the President has not given us a little more light on this matter, because during the discussion in another place the Minister in charge of the Bill there, when first this Amendment was moved to substitute another word for the word in the Bill, said the word "auxiliary" had been before the country far many months, that no objection had been taken to it and that there was no reason for making the change. It was obvious that there was a considerable difference of opinion over the word that should be substituted for it. The phrase "non-county" school was suggested, and also the word "managerial" and the word "founded." I think there is objection to the word "founded" in that it might be said there is good reason to think that in certain cases where there are groups of schools of the same foundation they might be called "confounded" schools. We must agree that we want no names for these schools that would cast any slur upon them, no name which should not be honourable; I am not sure, however, that the word "voluntary" is the most suitable word, because although in 1870 when that word was, I believe, first used in an Act of Parliament, it did express the nature of a great number of the schools then in existence, the schools now are less voluntary in a financial sense than they were in 1870. Their character has altered to that extent. We want to secure the utmost good will towards their

progress and development, but I think it is a pity that a word should be chosen to designate them which is felt by many to be untruthful. I am sorry, therefore, that the President should not have taken the view which his representative in another place took when the word "auxiliary" was first called into question. It would be interesting to hear why the Government have altered their mind.

Mr. Cove: I shall not detain the House very long although we could have a long discussion upon the point which my hon. Friend has opened up, and I will only say that I am glad the Government have accepted the Amendment and I hope this House will agree to that.

Mr. Speaker: There are only three Amendments dealing with the word "auxiliary" on this Clause, but later we shall get a whole series of them and I propose, if the House agrees, to put these consequential Amendments in batches.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords' Amendments to page 6, line 20, agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 6, line 35, leave out Subsection (7), and insert new Clause A:
(Requirements as to school premises).
(1) The Minister shall make regulations prescribing the standards to which the premises of schools maintained by local education authorities are to conform, and such regulations may prescribe different standards for such descriptions of schools as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, it shall be the duty of a local education authority to secure that the premises of every school maintained by them conform to the standards prescribed for schools of the description to which the school belongs:
Provided that if the Minister is satisfied with respect to any school that having regard to the nature of the site or to any existing buildings thereon or to other special circumstances affecting the school it would be unreasonable in that case to require conformity with the requirements of the regulations in any particular respect, he may direct that the school premises shall be deemed to conform to the prescribed standards if in lieu of conforming to the requirements of the regulations in that respect they conform to such other requirements as may be specified in the direction.
Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Mr. Butler: Before I actually move that we agree with this Amendment, I should like your permission, Mr. Speaker, to suggest a small manuscript Amendment, as I understand it is necessary to give notice of any Amendment now before moving "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." I have the Amendment with me here, and I suggest that we should, in Clause 9, page 6, line 35—in the new Clause, line 13—after the word "school," insert the word "premises." My reason, Mr. Speaker, for suggesting the insertion of the word "premises" after the word "school" in the proviso in line 13 of the new Clause will become apparent in a moment.
This new Clause is to take the place of Sub-section (7) of the old Clause 9. It deals with the question of the building Regulations and is described as requirements as to school premises. We found that the old Sub-section (7) was too narrow as it stood. It required all maintained schools, existing as well as future, to conform to some absolutely rigid standards. On examining the Bill in another place we found we were in the position where there was a school which had a hall which was perfectly suitable, though it was two or three feet short of the standards laid down in the regulation. We, therefore, felt it necessary to have some more elasticity in the Clause. Otherwise we might have been landed into making alterations unnecessarily to a perfectly good school. We have suggested, therefore, that the Clause be redrafted in this manner, but I should like to give an assurance that there is nothing in this Clause which indicates that the Government propose to lower their building standards whatsoever. We have simply included the proviso for the purpose of making it possible for the Minister to make an exception when there are special circumstances.
The reason for my suggesting the small manuscript Amendment, which I have had to put in early before listening to the Debate, under our Rules of Order, is that, on considering the proviso carefully, it seemed to me that the words "or to other special circumstances affecting the school" in the proviso might lead hon. Members to think that there might be imported into the Minister's consideration of the matter some question as to the

character of the school, whether it was a voluntary school or a county school, or same question quite apart from those of school premises. If we insert the word "premises" after the word "school," that limits very much the discretion of the Minister and makes him apply his mind solely to circumstances affecting the premises. Other circumstances could not be taken into consideration. Thus by these Amendments we should be able to insist on definite building standards while at the same time securing the necessary elasticity.

Amendment made in Lords Amendment: In line 13, after "school," insert "premises."—[Mr. Butler.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I do not think anybody in the House will object to our giving to the Minister power to modify the stringency of the Regulations, given a proper case, nor will the House object to the Minister having power to make an addition to the building Regulations for different kinds of schools. I imagine that the Regulations for primary schools will be different from those for secondary schools, but I would like an assurance that the addition to this Clause does not enable the Minister, or any of his successors, to make special Regulations for aided schools as compared with controlled schools or council schools. In other words, we do not want to find ourselves in a position of accepting, with regard to same types of schools, a lower standard than for other types. If there is no danger of that kind of thing, then I welcome the addition.

Sir Adam Maitland: I support the addition proposed by my right hon. Friend, but I would like to point out that the education authorities connected with the municipal corporations were rather afraid that the words "or to other special circumstances affecting the school" might give the Minister power to give directions on grounds of financial resources, and the Minister, having regard to the financial resources, might make a direction that the building need not comply with the building standards. I understand that appears to be a very general interpretation of the Minis-


ter's intention with regard to the manuscript Amendment, so that if he can give us an assurance on this point I think it would be a great comfort to the local education authorities.

Sir P. Hannon: I think it would be of great satisfaction to local authorities if it were made clear by the Minister that exceptional power would not be placed in his hands, and perhaps he will assure the House that the power will not be exercised improperly.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): The House will find, by reference to the original Sub-section (7) which we are deleting, that it was very narrowly drawn and might, on a strict interpretation, have involved us in applying the same standard of requirements to secondary schools as to nursery schools. Quite obviously that would have been absurd, and it is desirable that we should have power to prescribe appropriate Regulations for secondary, primary, infant and nursery schools, and that is what we understand by the phrase "description of school." It does not refer to the denominational or undenominational character of the school, and I hope that explanation meets the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes). I think by inserting the word "premises" we have made it clear that the special circumstances are to have relation to an existing building. There are many existing schools that are of quite a high standard for the present time, but which might just fail to conform with the new Regulations, and it would really be absurd if we were, for instance, to insist on some elaborate and expensive reconstruction taking place in a school hall that was some 10 or 12 square feet short of the actual requirements. We should probably ruin the architecture of the hall and we might involve ourselves in a great many difficulties. The word has been inserted to ensure that it shall be the special circumstances of the school premises and not of the school managers or governors that will be the determining factor when we have to deal with the matter. I am pleased to give my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) and my hon. Friend for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Sir P. Hannon) the assurances they asked for.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended," put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page to, line 37, agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Establishment and discontinuance of county and auxiliary schools.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 48, leave out from "him" to end of Subsection, and insert:
(6) After proposals for the establishment of a new school have been approved by the Minister under this Section the authority or persons by whom the proposed school is to be established shall submit to him in such form and in such manner as he may direct specifications and plans of the school premises, and the Minister, on being satisfied that the school premises will conform to the prescribed standards may approve the specifications and plans:
Provided that before submitting specifications and plans in respect of a school which is to be maintained as a voluntary school the persons by whom the school is to be established shall consult the local education authority.
(7) When the proposals specifications and plans for a new school have been approved by the Minister under this Section it shall be the duty of the authority or persons by whom the proposed school is to be established to give effect to the proposals in accordance with the specifications and plans so approved, except that in the case of proposals submitted under Sub-section (2) of this Section the duty of providing playing fields and any buildings required only for affording facilities for medical inspection or treatment or for providing milk, meals, or other refreshment shall be the duty of the local education authority.
(8) When proposals for the maintenance of any school have been approved by the Minister under this Section it shall be the duty of the local education authority to maintain it; and an authority shall not be under any duty to maintain a school after proposals that the authority shall cease to maintain it have been approved by the Minister under this Section.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There is a consequential Amendment to which I shall refer later. Clause 12, as it left the Commons, did not make it clear that there are two distinct stages in the establishment of the school, and the effect of this Amendment, which defines the procedure more clearly than the original Clause 12, is that Sub-sections (1) to (5) relate to the first stage and Subsections (6) to (8) to the second stage. The first stage is the publication of


notices of the essential particulars of the proposed school, such as its location, its denominational or educational character, and so forth. It is at this stage of publication that objections by interested persons can be made. The second stage arises when the Minister has approved the proposal, with or without modification, and at that stage plans and specifications of the school are submitted to the Minister by the promoters. Our object, therefore, in submitting this redraft is to make those two stages clearer and, in fact, to clarify the position and make the Bill a better Bill.
Under the new Sub-section (7), which is a long one, when the proposals or specifications and plans are approved it becomes the duty of the authorities to give effect to the proposals. In the case of voluntary schools the plans will normally include particulars of the playing fields, and rooms for medical treatment and the provision of meals and milk. The intention of the Bill, as shown in the Clauses which the House considered before, Clause 51 (1), Clause 46 (5) and Clause 47, is that the playing fields and rooms provided solely for medical inspection and treatment and school meals should be provided by the local education authority. The House, in Committee, considered these other Clauses, and this Clause now brings the Bill into line with them.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment. As I read it, the net effect of the new Sub-section (7) will be this. It will be possible for persons who seek to set up an aided school to submit their plans for the approval of the Minister. These will consist, on the one side, of nothing but a collection of class-rooms and, on the other, of another building containing a large hall which will be labelled "For playing purposes," some rooms upstairs which will be labelled "For purposes of medical inspection," the usual adjuncts for playing field purposes, dressing rooms and so forth and, in fact, a far bigger and more imposing building than the actual collection of classrooms. For the collection of classrooms, the denomination will have to provide 50 per cent. of the capital costs; but, if this provision is accepted, the whole cost of the playing fields and of the far more important building will be borne entirely by public funds.
The Minister has argued that the intention to provide this additional bonus to the denominational schools was manifest in the Bill as it left this House. I have looked at those provisions again. I have well in mind what transpired during the passage of the Bill through this House. If it was the intention, it certainly does not seem to come to light in the provisions of the Bill as they are studied, it does not come to light in any of the provisions referred to by my right hon. Friend, and it certainly was not mentioned during the passage of the Bill through this House. It is true that the Bill contains provision whereby, when the local authority directs the special provision of facilities for meals or for other purposes, the local authority has to pay. That is the position when something additional has to be provided to an existing building.
The House accepted that principle, but it never accepted the principle that, when approving plans for a new school, in which provision is to be made for meals or for doctors' visits, a proportion should be borne out of local funds. If it had been, we should have heard from that Box during the Committee stage, time and again, in emphasis of the generosity with which the denominations were to be treated, that it was not 50 per cent. that they were being asked to pay, as the plans would include these dining rooms and other extra rooms for which they would have to pay nothing. The Minister would have said, "No denomination will ever have to pay 50 per cent., because these facilities are to be paid for out of public funds." Never, during the discussions on the Bill or on the White Paper, was any suggestion made that the assistance to the denominations would exceed 50 per cent. This is not a provision to carry out, as the Minister said, the intention of this House. It is another side method of providing more than 50 per cent. We have gone far enough. Those of us who do not believe in denominational schools accepted the basic principle of the White Paper, the 50 per cent. During the passage of the Bill through this House we went further, and accepted the principle of easy money, at low rates of interest, to enable the denominations to build schools. We never accepted the principle that a large proportion of the buildings necessary for these services should be paid for by


public funds. I hope that this House will reject this Amendment from their Lordships' House.

Mr. Lipson: I find it difficult to understand why my hon. and learned Friend has worked himself into such a passion over this matter. He seemed to be worried because this Amendment had come upon him as a surprise, but he did not appear to argue that we should reject the Amendment on the good ground that it is undesirable. I cannot find anything denominational in dining rooms or playing fields, or rooms where doctors examine the children. What I am concerned with is that these facilities should be as good as possible; and if this Amendment will make them better, I welcome it, as I think, on public grounds, we all would.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
Consequential Amendment made to the Bill: In Clause 79, page 59, line 34, leave out "provision of a new county school," and insert:
maintenance as a county school of a school which at the time being is not such a school."—[Mr. Butler.]
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 12, line 25, agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Classification of auxiliary schools as controlled schools, aided schools, or special agreement schools.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 1, leave out "the school," and insert "any."

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment makes it clear that repairs not only to the interior of the school buildings, but also to detached buildings in the playground, are covered by the same rule, and are the responsibility of the local authority.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: As this Amendment affects Privilege, a Special Entry will be made in the JOURNAL.
Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 2, after "buildings," insert "forming part of the school premises."

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment makes it clear that the responsibility of the authority in respect of repairs does not extend to the teacher's dwelling house. Repairs to the teacher's dwelling house have always been the duty of the managers. That may be some consolation to the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes).

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords' Amendment: In page 13, line 27, at end, insert:
(6) In this Section the expression 'school buildings,' in relation to any school, does not include any buildings required only for affording facilities for enabling the local education authority to carry out their functions with respect to medical inspection or treatment or for affording facilities for providing milk, meals or other refreshment for pupils in attendance at the school.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of this Amendment is to remove a possible inconsistency between Clause 14 and Clauses 46 and 47. This Amendment put it beyond doubt that the expression "school buildings" does not include parts of the building required solely for medical inspection or for school meals.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: With respect, I suggest that my right hon. Friend should elucidate this Amendment a little further. Does it mean that if only part of a school is exclusively used for the purposes mentioned that is excluded? Secondly, what is the effect of the provision that the building or part of the building must be used only for that purpose? Suppose, as happens in many schools nowadays, the central hall of the school is used at midday as a dining room. Does that mean that that central hall can attract full Government grant, or that the interpretation will be that that is its main purpose or object? On those two matters the House would be grateful for some elucidation.

Mr. Ede: The words of the Amendment are:
required only for affording facilities …
Therefore, if the hall is used both as an assembly hall—what my hon. and learned


Friend called a central hall—and as a dining room, the local education authority are not responsible for providing it. The school, under the building regulations, will have to have an assembly hall, but if, in addition to an assembly hall, there is, as it is sometimes felt advisable that there should be, a separate dining hall, and a room is provided which is required only for dining purposes, that is part of the local education authority's responsibility, and they will have to provide it. It is only those parts of the building which are required only for these purposes, which become the liability of the local education authority. I should have thought, in view of the way in which education is administered in the country, that is the reasonable line of division.
Let us take an area where the local education authority provide medical inspection and treatment at clinics away from the schools, where all the children from the various schools go to the clinics. Would it not be absurd that the managers of the voluntary school, in such circumstances, should not be relieved of the responsibility of financing medical inspection? Where the local education authority prefer what I regard as the better way, having the medical inspection on the school premises, they must be responsible for making the provision. I should have thought that the fairest thing is to say that school meals, medical inspection, and things of that description, should be the responsibility of the local education authority where the building or part of the building, provided is required only for that purpose. That is the effect of the Amendment. It was always inherent in the Bill, in the words of Clause 46 (5), which says, in dealing with medical inspection and treatment, that
the managers or governors of any auxiliary school"—
now "voluntary school"—
 … shall not be required by any such direction to incur expenditure.
It would, I suggest, have been quite absurd to relieve the managers or governors of existing schools of such liability, and to impose it on managers or governors of schools which will be in course of erection in future. What we have done only carries out the obvious intention of those two Clauses, and places it beyond doubt.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.— [special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 13, line 29, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 41, leave out from "Where "to" in,'' in line 45, and insert:
in connection with any proposals submitted to the Minister under Sub-section (2) of Section twelve of this Act it is claimed that any school or schools thereby proposed to be established should be maintained by the local education authority as a voluntary school.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think it would be convenient if we could consider this and other Lords Amendments, to line 2 in page 14, as they are all consequential upon this. This is purely a technical Amendment. When the Clause left this House, it would have been possible for the Minister to authorise the replacement of an existing school by one new school but not by more than one. But there may well be cases where an existing school should be replaced by more than one school and to enable that to be done is the object of these Amendments. It might create alarm in the minds of some Members, because they might imagine that it would lead to the creation of a whole series of new schools providing much more accommodation than the existing one.
That possibility is, however, safeguarded in the Clause as re-drafted, with these Amendments in it, by the fact that the Minister has to determine that the new school or schools are in substitution for the old one. In fact, if hon. Members will apply their minds to the matter, they will see that it is no more alarming for the Minister to satisfy himself where there are two schools in substitution for one than if he had one school with more pupils than in the old one. The fact that there are two schools, instead of one, is merely put in for convenience, and not with the idea of increasing the ambit of the clause by giving the Minister new and unheard-of powers.

Mr. Parker: May I ask two questions on that point? Supposing you had a migration of population, with the re-housing of an area, say from Poplar to


Dagenham. Suppose that originally it was proposed to have one new school in Dagenham in place of one in Poplar, but, as part of the re-housing proposals, the population being rather more scattered it was felt desirable to have two, or even three, new schools in place of the one previously existing. Would that mean that the same number of pupils would be covered and that they might be rather small schools? Suppose the denomination concerned decided to take advantage of the opportunity to build a larger school, more than the numbers would justify? In that case, if they felt that this would attract into this school other population round about, who were not transferred, would it be the case that for any building providing for more than the number of pupils originally covered, the denomination would have to put up its share of the extra funds, and the Minister would only consider the number of pupils transferred, as being genuinely transferred for this purpose? I would like an assurance on that point.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend's suggestion is the correct one. The substituted school will be for the same number of pupils as the existing school. If a school is divided—and, with some of the big barrack schools we have known in the past, there might well be a division—there will be a total number of pupils, and there will have to be some method by which they can be identified. If they cannot be identified, the question of substitution does not arise. It will not be possible, in this, to secure the financing of three schools equal to the size of the original school. It may well be that the original school may be split up between two or three new schools, and I think that that might be a great advantage.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 17, line 40, agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Powers of local education authority as to use and care of premises of auxiliary schools.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 42, leave out from the beginning to "school", in line 45, and insert "The managers or governors of a controlled."

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think it would be convenient if we could, at the same time, consider the following Lords Amendments:
In line 47, leave out "on Sundays and."
In page 18, line 5, at end, insert:
and the foundation managers or foundation governors shall be entitled to determine the use to which the school premises or any part thereof shall be put on Sundays, but save as aforesaid the local education authority may give such directions as to the occupation and use of the school premises of a controlled school as they think fit.
In line 10, leave out "require" and insert "direct."
In line 15, leave out "required" and insert "directed."
In line 16, at end, insert:
(3) Subject to any directions given by a local education authority under the foregoing provisions of this section and to the requirements of any enactment other than this Act or the regulations made thereunder, the occupation and use of the school premises of any voluntary school shall be under the control of the managers or governors thereof.
In line 34, leave out "auxiliary" and insert "voluntary."
All the Amendments affect Clause 21, which deals with the powers of the local education authority and the use and care of the premises of auxiliary schools. If I could summarise the effect of these Amendments in one short statement, it would indicate how the new Clause 21 differs from the old Clause. The Amendments do not affect the position of aided and special agreement schools, which are referred to in the Clause in the terms of the original Clause 10. They affect only controlled schools.
What do these Amendments do? The foundation managers or governors are given the right to determine the use of the premises of controlled schools on Sundays. In the first place the foundation managers or governors are closely concerned with the use of the premises on Sundays, and it was thought that they should have a right to determine that use. Secondly, the whole body of managers or governors are given the right to determine the use of the premises on Saturdays when not required by the local education authority for youth welfare purposes. Thirdly, the whole body of managers or


governors are given the right to determine the use of the premises from Monday to Friday, subject to any direction as to their use which the local authority may think fit to give. Really, all that this Amendment does is that, instead of the managers or governors feeling that, at any moment, the local authority might reserve the right to use their school, leaving them in uncertainty, the managers or governors now have the certainty that they have the right to use the school when they have no direction from the authority. While leaving the balance the same as before, this introduces more certainty into the picture between Monday and Friday, because the managers or governors of a controlled school can feel that they have certainty that the local authority will give them directions when they want the premises. These Amendments are improvements, and indicate, I think, that we have made the Clause better than it was before.

Mr. McEntee: Will the Minister say what is in his mind about the period of time during which the direction is to be given? What notice will the local authority have to give to the managers of the school that they require the school for their own purposes? They might say, "Well, we ought to have at least seven days' notice from the local education authority," but the latter might easily think that 48 hours, or even 24 hours, would be sufficient notice. There does not appear to me to be anything in the Clause to indicate the time, and there might easily be dispute between the parties as to the period of time in which notice should be given, regarding the requirements of the local authority in respect of these buildings.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: With the broad lines of what is suggested, the House will be in complete agreement, but the Amendment in regard to Sunday requires closer examination. We are dealing here with the controlled school. It is not an aided school, but a controlled school, and that means that the managers or governors will consist, as to one-third, of the denomination representatives, and, as to two-thirds, of those representing the local education authority. It is right and proper that a denomination which founded the school should have the first claim on the premises of the school on a Sunday. There will be many of these controlled

schools, however, which will never be used on Sunday at all, and many more where, judging from one's experience, the use that will be made of them on Sundays will only be for the holding of a Sunday school. It often happens that other denominations may want facilities on a Sunday—educational, perhaps. I have known cases in Wales where, while the chapel was being rebuilt, the services were held in the schools, and, generally, there was no difficulty where it was a county school. Now, if the new school in an area is a controlled school, financed, managed and run by the public under the protection of a trust, the two foundation managers can deny the use of that school to anybody else, though they are not using it for any purpose themselves. Is it not possible for us to have some assurance that the powers now being placed by this Amendment in the hands of foundation managers or governors shall not be abused?

Mr. Ede: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee), I think that, in the first place, difficulties are not likely to arise, because the directions will generally be that the authority wants the school for an evening institute, and the terms during which these institutes run are well-known, but, if the demand is unreasonable, or the length of notice given is unreasonable, the managers have the right of appeal to the Minister against the direction or requirement of the local education authority under Clause D set out on page II of the Paper we are considering to-day, so there will be ample protection against unreasonable decisions. Concerning the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes), let us realise that other denominations than that responsible for the foundation of the school have hitherto had no claim on these schools during any period of the week, and if, therefore, in some Welsh village, while the chapel is being repaired, the managers of a voluntary school have allowed the school to be used for church services, it has been as an act of grace and denominational good feeling in which, I am quite sure, we should rejoice.
I recollect once going to Wales and seeing a church school being conducted in a Nonconformist chapel because the building had become unusable, and a


Roman Catholic school had been grafted on to it during the evacuation. That seemed to me to be getting as near as possible to what we would desire. Here, and not merely with regard to the use by the Nonconformist denomination of the church school, but with regard to the use of the building for educational purposes on Sunday, if consent is unreasonably withheld, any person who is aggrieved has, under the new Clause D, the right of appeal to the Minister, because he will allege that the power conferred by the Bill is being exercised unreasonably. That is a position that has not existed in the past and it does very considerably protect the position of other people in the village against managers who might try to exclude them from what is very often the only building available for social purposes in the village or hamlet. The new Amendment, coupled with the new Clause D on the Paper, amply safeguards the position mentioned both by my hon. Friend the Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. McEntee) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes).

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 21, line 10, agreed to.

CLAUSE 25.—(Special provisions as to religious education in county schools.)

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line II, leave out "act of."

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Edmund Harvey: May we have an explanation on this point?

Mr. Butler: I think that the Amendment in which the hon. Member is interested has been passed, and I will explain this Amendment to leave out "act of," and the following Amendment in line 16, to leave out "the same Subsection" and insert "Sub-section (2) of the said Section." The first Amendment is designed to bring the wording of Clause 25 into line with Clause 24 (1) which was amended in Committee of the House of Commons by the omission of the words "act of," so that this is a technical, almost a surgical, Amendment to get the Bill right.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 21, line 16, agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Special provisions as to religious education in controlled schools.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 15, after "not", insert "while holding that position."

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of this Amendment is to put it beyond doubt that a reserved teacher is eligible for promotion to a head teacher-ship. In the Bill as originally drafted that was in doubt. When a reserved teacher becomes a head teacher he or she is no longer reserved. We want to preserve the position whereby a reserved teacher is able to rise to the headship of the school.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 22, line 46, agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Special provisions as to religious education in aided schools and in special agreement schools.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 37, at end, insert new Clause B:
(Provisions as to religious instruction in accordance with agreed syllabus.)
(1) The provisions of the Seventh Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the preparation, adoption, and reconsideration, of an agreed syllabus of religious instruction.
(2) A local education authority shall have power, upon the recommendation of any conference convened in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule, to constitute a standing advisory council on religious education to advise the authority upon matters connected with the religious instruction to be given in accordance with an agreed syllabus and, in particular, as to methods of teaching, the choice of books, and the provision of lectures for teachers.
(3) The method of appointment of the members of any council constituted under the last foregoing subsection and the term of office and conditions of retirement of the members thereof shall be such as may be determined by the local education authority, but the authority shall have regard to any recommendations with respect to those matters which may be made to them by such a conference as aforesaid.

Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amend-


ment, in Sub-section (2) of the proposed new Clause, to leave out:
upon the recommendation of any conference convened in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule.
For the convenience of the House I should remind them that I shall ask them shortly to agree with the Lords in the said Amendment but I must draw attention to certain Government Amendments to this Clause which are on the Order Paper.
In Sub-section {2) of the proposed new Clause we wish to leave out the words which I have just indicated; and in Subsection {3) of the proposed new Clause, we propose to leave out from the first "authority" to the end of the Sub-section and to put in a new Sub-section (4), which is on the Order Paper, and which says:
A local education authority shall have regard to any unanimous recommendations which may be made to them by any conference convened in accordance with the provisions of the said Seventh Schedule with respect to the expediency of constituting such an advisory council as aforesaid or with respect to the method by which or the terms and conditions upon which members of any such Council should be appointed.
We shall then consider the Lords Amendment, as amended in the sense suggested by the Government.
First I will tell the House the reason for amendment. It was thought better to hang the reference to the Seventh Schedule in the Bill we are considering, which deals with the method of establishing and drawing up an agreed syllabus, solely on a definition. We have therefore to hang that Schedule on a proper Clause of its own and we have brought in the question of the standing advisory committee. Those who are familiar with local government know that a local authority has, under existing local government law, the power to set up such an advisory committee if it desires. The object of our Amendments is to say, as we have done in the new Sub-section (4) which I have read, that the local education authority shall have regard to any unanimous recommendations which may be made to them by any conference. The conference referred to in the Amendment is the one to which more detailed reference is made in the Seventh Schedule.
The value of the Amendments which the Government are making is that they

draw the attention of the local education authority to the need for having regard to any unanimous recommendation which the conference might make. The value of that is obvious to the House, namely, that the matter shall proceed upon agreement with the interested parties and to which the local authority shall have regard. Under the old Bill, when it left this House it might have been thought that the conference would disappear, but the value of this Amendment, as amended by the Government, is not only that it is possible to set up an advisory council under the Bill, quite apart from what the local authority might have done under its own powers, but also that the local authority have to pay attention to a unanimous recommendation of the conference. In the circumstances, I think that the Amendment made in another place and the Amendments suggested to it now by the Government are improvements upon the original Bill.

Mr. McEntee: Will the Minister say why he is so insistent on the word "unanimous" in the conferences? Frequently, in conferences of any kind, you get someone who will not allow a unanimous decision on anything. I have attended so many conferences that I rather sense the possibility of such an individual getting into this conference and preventing a very good decision being taken because he is of the type of mind that would never allow a unanimous decision to take place upon anything.

Mr. Ede: Unanimity in this particular case means unanimity between the four distinct groups of people. The conference is composed of persons representing the education authority, teachers, the Church of England, and other religious denominations. There might not be unanimity on the part of everyone, but that does not prejudice an agreed issue being reached. If one of the panels by a majority dissents from the other three, then agreement is not readied. Agreed syllabuses are being drawn up all over the country on that basis. The procedure is very well known and one cantankerous individual is not able to upset the proceedings. But if one of the panels—I use that word for want of a better—dissents, then the position is not unanimous. That is the basis upon which this has always been drawn up, and the insistence on the word


"unanimous" is to ensure that anything that is called "agreed" is in fact agreed to by the four parties.

Mr. McEntee: Can we take if that no individual member of these panels can obstruct?

Mr. Ede: He would have to convert the majority of his own panel to his point of view before he could succeed.
Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment to the Lords Amendment made: In Sub-section (3) of the proposed new Clause, leave out from the first "authority" to end of the Sub-section, and insert:
(4) A local education authority shall have regard to any unanimous recommendations which may be made to them by any conference convened in accordance with the provisions of the said Seventh Schedule with respect to the expediency of constituting such an advisory council as aforesaid or with respect to the method by which or the terms and conditions upon which members of any such council should be appointed."—[Mr. Butler.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."

Professor Gruffydd: I beg to draw attention to the words in the last line but one on page 6:" Methods of teaching." It is proposed here that this council should advise teachers upon methods of teaching. I think this must surely be a new departure altogether in education. I do not suppose it was meant that methods of teaching in the usual sense should be considered, for they cannot be within the purview of a lay body of this sort. Now that teachers are to be trained for this particular purpose, and universities, etc., are setting up departments for training in religious teaching, surely they would not wish a lay body to advise them on methods of teaching? Perhaps the Minister will say something about that?

Mr. Butter: I can only speak again with the permission of the House. If that is given me, I would only say that I have had the opportunity of discussing this with the teachers' representatives and I do not think they entertain the doubts of the hon. Gentleman. I think he can set his mind at rest, that it does not entail

any interference with the general attitude adopted either by the Board or the local authorities, towards their teachers. That is certainly not the case. This is purely an Advisory Council, and the words "methods of teaching" are very broad. Even we at the Board issue what have been described as "suggestions," and we do not dare to go any further than that. I do not suppose the Advisory Council will wish to be "more Royalist than the King," and I anticipate that the Advisory Councils will simply give advice and that teachers will be only too glad to cooperate with such councils if the advice is given in the right way. If they gave advice in the wrong way, teachers would be the first to feel that the councils were not fulfilling a useful function. I hope I have assured my hon. Friend that the words "methods of teaching" do not mean to introduce any departure from the general principle adopted by the Board or local authorities.

Mr. R. Morgan: I rise to support what the President has said so well. If there had been any objection coming from the teaching profession I think I should have been directly informed. While I want to say there is no objection, as far as I am concerned, from the teachers as a body, I heartily agree with the President, who said that they welcome the very excellent agreed syllabuses and the guidance and suggestions given to them. If these are going to be continued, I am sure there will be no opposition from the teaching profession.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 28.—(Saving as to position of teachers.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 41, leave out "auxiliary ", and insert "voluntary."

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think it would be convenient if I were to deal at the same time with the following one—in line 41 to leave out from the second "school" to "or" in line 42. They deal with the proviso as it originally stood to Clause 28 which was thought


to be unsatisfactory, and was, in fact, capable of certain misinterpretations, one of which was that it would have been possible to say under it that teachers in aided schools, and reserved teachers in controlled and special agreement schools, should receive less emoluments or be disqualified from promotion because they actually went to church. The Government thought it was wiser to amend the proviso, and we have therefore done so in the way indicated. The Amendments get rid of this, and similar misinterpretations of the Clause. They give certain protection to reserved teachers and teachers in aided schools, namely, against receiving any less emoluments or being disqualified from promotion, but they leave it open to such teachers to be appointed upon the basis of their religious beliefs, which is continuing the present practice in such schools, and to have required religious instruction. Therefore, by this redrafting, which is rather longer than the old draft, we make the position clearer in respect of different sorts of teachers, and do not impose any liability or fresh danger or difficulty upon the teaching profession by the words we are using.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 29, line 29, agreed to.

CLAUSE 37.—(Duty of parents to secure regular attendance of registered pupils.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 30, leave out:
more than three miles measured by the nearest available route from" and insert:
not within walking distance of.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The advantage of this Amendment and the one next to it, with which the Government recommend the House to agree, is that we are substantially altering the present law in regard to the statutory distance within which it is necessary for a child to be if it is obliged to walk. If the House will look at the Amendment to page 31, line 15 it will be seen that this is an improvement on the present law in this respect, that it causes children under the age of eight years to be obliged statutorily to walk less than they are obliged to walk now. This matter has

been under consideration for some time, and we gave some small attention to it in the course of the passage of this Bill through the House. I think it would be wise for the House to accept this Amendment because I believe that that distance is quite far enough for children of that age to have to walk, and in that respect the law will be improved. It is also interesting to note that a number of local education authorities—and not only what I would call the more enlightened authorities—prescribe a shorter distance than the present three mile limit in their by-laws. I have a list of them here and they differentiate in a number of cases far the younger children. There are some 16 out of 62 county authorities which make such a differentiation in their by-laws at present. If the House accepts this Amendment, we shall have altered the law in respect of children under eight years of age to the extent mentioned in the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 31, line 15, agreed to.

CLAUSE 38.—(Enforcement of school attendance.)

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 35, and insert:
(3) Where the court before which a prosecution is brought for an offence against the last foregoing section is satisfied that the child in respect of whom the offence is alleged to have been committed has failed to attend regularly at the school at which he is a registered pupil then, whether or not the parent is convicted the court

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Creech Jones: I think we welcome the Amendment so far as it goes but I would like the President to reassure me on one point. I gather that the arrangement which was made under the 1938 Rules by the Lord Chancellor, the "Juvenile Courts (Assignment) Rules," aimed at a certain procedure in respect to cases of prosecution for the truancy of children. It was then the intention, I think, that all cases should be referred to the Juvenile Courts both in respect to any prosecution which might be thought desirable in the case of the parents and also any action as to the treatment of


the children concerned. Reference to the Juvenile Court is the most appropriate method of handling the case from the point of view of the child. I believe the intention of the Amendment before us is to avoid the double procedure, of the case being heard in the ordinary court as well as in the Juvenile Court. The ordinary court may now refer the case to the Juvenile Court so far as the child is concerned but presumably, under the Amendment, the ordinary court will still deal with the parents.
I think it is generally admitted that the procedure inaugurated by the Lord Chancellor in 1938 went a long way to meeting this class of difficulty, by the Juvenile Court having before it both the parents and the child. The procedure became very general so that all such cases were dealt with by the Juvenile Court and not by the ordinary court at all. I would like to be assured that the procedure as laid down by the Lord Chancellor in 1938 is not now going to be modified by the Amendment. I am concerned to know if my interpretation of the Lords Amendment is a correct one. It seems to me to fall short of the intention of 1938 and goes back on the excellent experience which has been gained in the Juvenile Courts since the Rules of 1938 were made. I would like to be reassured that it is the intention to follow the single procedure of referring both parent and child to the Juvenile Court instead of having two courts dealing with the same offence.

Mr. Butler: I can assure the hon. Gentleman at once. The Government were approached by the Magistrates Association and we have decided to revert to the Juvenile Courts (Assignment) Rules 1938 procedure as suggested by the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that in response to the representations made to us, both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have agreed that we ought to revert to that procedure, and that brings the Juvenile Court into the picture as the hon. Gentleman desires.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 31, line 45, agreed to.

CLAUSE 39.—(General duties of local education authorities with respect to further education.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 32, leave out "young people's," and insert "county."

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There are similar Amendments in subsequent Clauses of the Bill to alter the title of these colleges. I think that I myself should regret the demise of the term "young people's colleges" to which I have always been attached. Nevertheless, I suggest that the House should accept the new designation of the colleges as inserted in another place. I think that only a few words from me are necessary. No task has been more difficult than the nomenclature in this Bill and if I receive good advice I am always ready to accept it. If it is felt by a majority that "county colleges" is a right description I shall be the first to recommend the House that they should accept it. In any case it is the spirit which animates these schools which matters. They will tend to be called by the district in which they are situated, and their reputation will be based on their achievements rather than on their name. I suggest, therefore, that we agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 41, line 34, agreed to.

CLAUSE 51.—(Provision of facilities for recreation and social and physical training.)

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 3, leave out from "of" to "at," in line 5, and insert:
camps, holiday classes, playing fields, play centres, and other places (including playgrounds, gymnasiums, and swimming baths not appropriated to any school or college).

Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 1, after "camps," to insert "community centres."
This Amendment is identical with one moved in another place, and although the Minister in charge expressed sympathy with the idea of community centres, his objection to accepting it there was that


the Government had a sub-committee considering the question of community centres, which had not yet reported, and it might be that local authorities rather than local education authorities would be empowered or encouraged to assist community centres, or that both would be so empowered. I think that ought not to prevent Parliament from expressing, in this Bill, its desire that local education authorities should be empowered, with the consent of the Minister, to give this assistance. The Minister would have a check against any unreasonable use of the powers; it would not prevent the Government later, if they felt it desirable, from empowering the local authorities, as well as local education. authorities, to give such assistance. Surely it is important at this stage, when local education authorities are making their plans, that they should make them as promptly as possible and that they should take account of the possibility of educational uses of community centres. Plans are being made at this moment for new areas, for the replacement of devastated areas and for the creation of large suburbs of houses where communal centres may be of the utmost importance. In connection with the development of adult education, the right use of the community centre is also a matter that we must consider. It is an issue of such importance that I hope the President will be willing to reconsider the attitude which was taken up by the Minister who represented him in another place. There is no difference in any quarter of the House as to the value of community centres, and in our desire to see them encouraged. The educational use of a community centre is of great importance. We do not want those who go to the community centre merely to have opportunities for good fellowship and for dances, whist drives and gatherings of that kind. At the heart of it should be educational work. Therefore, the local education authority ought to be able to assist in the establishment, maintenance and management of community centres, and I hope the Government will be willing to accept the Amendment.

Mr. McEntee: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
I am governor of a college which is known to the Minister and he is probably aware that the county are now in the process of taking over a very fine building for a community centre. I, with other gover-

nors, was rather concerned as to the use to which this new centre might be put. If should be very sorry if it developed into a place merely for the holding of darts competitions, dances, whist drives and things of that kind, although I have no objection to these functions in themselves. I would like to see community centres as places where classes could be held. This Amendment seeks to give the local education authority an opportunity to make grants to a community centre for purely educational purposes. I do not know what objection there can be to that course, but if it could be done I am satisfied that it would achieve a very good purpose and would enable community centres, which will grow in importance and in number, to carry on educational work for young people and also for adults who might take part in their general work.

Mr. Denman: Unless my right hon. Friend the President has a very strong abjection, I hope he will accept this Amendment. It merely gives the local education authority power—it does not impose on them a duty—to have some influence in the conduct and purposes of these community centres.

Mr. Hutchinson: The House will be in sympathy with the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey), but as I listened to him I was not by any means convinced that what he was seeking to do would be effective in securing the object which he has in mind. As the Clause stands, the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind is mare satisfactorily provided for than would be the case if this Amendment was adopted. There is included in this catalogue of places and things to which a local education authority may give their support, places at which facilities for recreation, for training and so on may be provided. I should have thought that it would be much better to leave the Clause as it stands, because as the Clause stands it is possible for the local education authority to provide the place for the community centre. It is the place that matters. If we insert the expression, "community centre," it will be necessary to insert somewhere in the Bill a definition of a community centre. It may not be easy to define a community centre. That being so, I hope that the Minister will


resist the Amendment, and that my hon. Friend will feel satisfied that as the Clause stands it provides in a more effective way for the purpose which he has in mind.

Mr. Ede: The Government are thoroughly in sympathy with the idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey), and those who have supported him, but we take the view which has been pertly expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson). There is ample power in the Bill as it is drafted to do all that my hon. Friends desire. In fact, there is power to aid an educational effort in institutions such as that to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. McEntee) has alluded. It is enjoined as a duty on local education authorities, in this Bill, to arrange for the further education of the people of their areas, and where a community centre exists it will probably be a very convenient place at which to hold classes. I hope we shall not have quite so many classes for further education taking place in school premises in future, because some of the young people we desire to get back for further education rather resent going back to the old place which they thought they had finished with, and which did not appear to show any great appreciation of their efforts when they were attending it.
This Clause does not prevent a local education authority from erecting a community centre and it avoids the difficulty which was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, because it calls it "another place." Where a local education authority desires to erect the kind of building which we know as a community centre, those words will amply cover them when they try to put their wish into effect. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. We are in accord with his desire, but we have not yet decided who are the appropriate people to erect a community centre. We are in the difficulty of finding an exact definition of a community centre. We welcome my hon. Friend's idea; we believe that the Bill is ample to ensure that every encouragement will be given to local education authorities actively to pursue their powers in these matters.

Mr. Harvey: In view of the very sympathetic reply of the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Ede: The Lords Amendment in page 42, line 3, almost appears to take out words and put them back again, but that is necessary to enable us to do two or three things. We want to make it clear that some amenities, including playing fields, can be provided by an authority for the use of a single school if necessary. Certain other amenities can be provided by an authority if they are not appropriated to a particular school, and many amenities which can be provided, but are not so appropriated, are playgrounds other than ordinary school playgrounds. The Clause as originally drafted appears to be rather obscure and as amended we believe it will be clear and will enable these separate things to be done.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 10, at end, insert:
(2) A local education authority, in making arrangements for the provision of facilities or the organisation of activities under the powers conferred on them by the last foregoing Subsection shall, in particular, have regard to the expediency of co-operating with any voluntary societies or bodies whose objects include the provision of facilities or the organisation of activities of a similar character.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment meets a wish strongly expressed during the Committee stage by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), that in the Bill there should be some recognition of the work that is being done by voluntary organisations in this sphere of activity. This new Sub-section adequately recognises them and ensures that they will get appropriate co-operation from the local education authorities.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 42, line 13, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 16, leave out "to three," and insert "and two."

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the next Amendment deal with the retention of part of the Physical Training and Recreation Act. As the Bill left the House, the first three Sections of the Act would have disappeared. Representations were made to us by the National Playing Fields Association and the Standing Joint Committee of Metropolitan Boroughs, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key), with regard to some grants which have been promised under the Act. The Act established a very elaborate machinery, including the National Fitness Council and Area Fitness Councils throughout the country, upon whose recommendations the grants have to be made. The effect of the Amendments that we are making is to retain the grants but to remove the over elaborate machinery that had been constructed. What this means is that the power to make the grant will remain, and we shall set up an appropriate advisory committee to help us in considering claims for grants, and in that way the work that was commenced by the Physical Training and Recreation Act will be continued less cumbrously than it was being conducted prior to the war.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 42, line 41, agreed to.

CLAUSE 52.—(Power to ensure cleanliness.)

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 8, leave out "then subject as hereafter provided."

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the next three Amendments speed up the treatment of verminous children. They have been asked for by local education authorities and will enable those authorities to deal more expeditiously with these unfortunate pupils.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 43, line 34, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 44, leave out Sub-section (6), and insert:
(6) If alter the cleansing of the person or clothing of any pupil has been carried out under this section his person or clothing is again found to be infested with vermin or in a foul condition at any time while he is in attendance at a school maintained by a local education authority or at a county college, and it is proved that the condition of his person or clothing is due to neglect on the part of his parent, or in the case of a pupil in attendance at a county college to his own neglect, the parent or the pupil, as the case may be, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty shillings

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment deals with a case where a pupil, having been cleansed, subsequently becomes reinfested with vermin owing to neglect by the parents. It imposes a penalty on the parents for such neglect.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lord Amendments to page 49, line 25, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 33, at end, insert new Clause C:
(Power of local education authorities to assist governors of aided secondary schools in respect of liabilities incurred before commencement of Part II)
A local education authority shall have power, so far as may be authorised by arrangements approved by the Minister. to make grants to the governors of any aided secondary school for the purpose of helping them to discharge any liability incurred, before the date of the commencement of this Part of this Act, by them or on their behalf or by or on behalf of any former managers or governors of the school or any trustees thereof, for the purposes of establishing or carrying on the school.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Clause is identical with the old Clause 76 (2). I mention that to show that we are not introducing any new idea at this stage but it has been given a Clause of its own. The liabilities involved in the Clause must have been incurred before 1st April, 1945. It is a matter that the House has had before it before.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 50, line 12, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 14, at end, insert new Clause D:
(Power of Minister to prevent unreasonable exercise of functions)
If the Minister is satisfied, either on complaint by any person or otherwise, that any local education authority or the managers or governors of any county or auxiliary school have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act, he may, notwithstanding any enactment rendering the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty contingent upon the opinion of the authority or of the managers or governors, give such directions as to the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty as appear to him to be expedient.

Amendment read a Second time.

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at the end, to add:
If a local education authority inform the Minister that they are aggrieved by any directions given under this Section the directions shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be thereafter and if either House of Parliament within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such directions are laid before it resolves that the directions be annulled the directions shall cease to have effect.
In reckoning any such period of forty days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

Mr. Denman: I have an Amendment on line 3 to leave out "auxiliary" and insert "voluntary."

Mr. Speaker: I have no Amendment in the name of the hon. Member.

Mr. Butler: The word "auxiliary" unfortunately appears in the draft instead of the word "voluntary." The hon. Member has done a service in drawing attention to it. I presume it will arise when you, Sir, put the new Clause with the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson).

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment must come first.

Mr. Hutchinson: This new Clause and my Amendment to it raise a question of some constitutional importance and significance. Under the terms of the Clause the Minister is empowered, if he is satisfied, upon the complaint of any person or otherwise, that any local education

authority or the managers or governors of a school have acted unreasonably in the exercise of any powers conferred upon them by this Bill, or in the determination of any question which under any other enactment is contingent upon the opinion of the authority, to give directions overruling the decision which the local education authority or other persons have given. That involves a very considerable extension of the power of a Minister to intervene in matters which are by the terms of an Act of Parliament left to the discretion of other authorities.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having re-turned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944.
2. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1944.
3. Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944.
4. Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act, 1944.
5. Gillingham Corporation Act, 1944.
6. Ascot District Gas and Electricity Act, 1944.
7. Wisbech Corporation Act, 1944.
8. Loughborough Corporation Act, 1944.

EDUCATION BILL

Consideration resumed of Amendment to Lords Amendment (page 50, line 14), at end, to add:
If a local education authority inform the Minister that they are aggrieved by any directions given under this Section the directions nail be laid before Parliament as soon as may be thereafter and if either House of Parliament within the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which any such directions are laid before it resolves that the directions be annulled the directions shall cease to have effect.
In reckoning any such period of 40 days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

Mr. Hutchinson: I was pointing out that under this new Clause the Minister


has extensive powers, if he is satisfied that a local authority or other person has acted unreasonably in the exercise of statutory powers conferred upon them, to give directions the effect of which is to override the decision of the local authority. I am not going to suggest that there may not be cases in which it is desirable that powers of this nature should be exercised by the Minister. This new Clause does represent, however, a departure from what has been the normal constitutional practice of Parliament. The House will probably agree that there may be cases, particularly under a Bill of this character, where a far-reaching power of this sort is necessary.
If, however, we give such drastic power to the Minister, we ought to impose adequate safeguards upon the exercise of that power which will ensure that its exercise by the Minister shall operate in a manner which is satisfactory to the authorities whose decision he over-rides: Therefore, I have put down this Amendment to the Clause which provides that it a local education authority is aggrieved by any directions which are given by the Minister, over-riding their decision under the provisions of this Clause, it shall be open to them to require that those directions should be laid before Parliament and that there should be an opportunity for Parliament, if it sees fit, to pray that the directions be annulled.
I submit that the Amendment provides a satisfactory and effective safeguard to the exercise of this power. It is not necessary for me to say that in the case of my right hon. Friend there is not likely to be any unreasonable exercise of the power. But we have to look at this matter apart from personal questions of that nature and to ask ourselves whether, as a matter of principle, it is right that we should vest in a Minister this far-reaching power of over-riding decisions which Parliament has said should, in the first instance, be taken by public authorities, such as local education authorities.
My right hon. Friend may say in reply to the Amendment that if it is adopted he will be exposed to frivolous objections to his directions being brought before Parliament. If what the Amendment proposed was that the right to bring these directions before Parliament should be extended to every individual who had

made a complaint, or indeed to any body of managers whose decision was to be varied, then it might well be that we should have brought to Parliament complaints of a frivolous character. When, however, we are dealing with a local authority like a local education authority, we must assume that they will act reasonably. All we are asking is that my right hon. Friend will agree that, if he comes to the conclusion that the authority has acted unreasonably in the exercise of its statutory powers, it should have the opportunity of bringing his directions to Parliament for a final decision.
When we are dealing with a public authority we have to consider their position as a statutory body, and it is a serious thing for it to be said that a Minister of the Crown is satisfied that a statutory body have exercised their power unreasonably. No doubt it will be an exceptional thing, and I submit, therefore, that if the Minister seriously comes to the conclusion that a local education authority have acted unreasonably in the exercise of powers which Parliament has made contingent upon their discretion, they should have an opportunity, if they feel aggrieved, of causing those directions to be laid before this House so that Parliament may be the final judge between them and the Minister. I hope that my right hon. Friend, who has throughout the progress of this Bill acted with so much consideration for the local education authorities, will be able to meet us in this final matter and agree that there should be this safeguard for which we ask. It will enable this House to be the final judge on matters which may arise between him and them in the execution of the powers which Parliament has vested in them under this Bill and of the powers which Parliament has given under them other enactments relating to education.

Sir John Mellor: On a point of Order. May I formally second the Amendment and then have an opportunity of speaking after the Minister has spoken on it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot second the Amendment and then talk on it later. He may talk on the Lords Amendment when that comes before the House, because it will be a new Question.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.


I understand that the new Clause is in substitution for Clause 93, Sub-section (2) of the Bill, which a Lords Amendment is designed to delete later on. The new Clause is much stronger than that Subsection, which says:
Where the performance of any duty imposed by or for the purposes of this Act on a local education authority or on the managers or governors of any county school or auxiliary school is thereby made contingent upon, the opinion of the authority or of the managers or governors, the Minister may nevertheless require the authority managers or governors to perform that duty if in his opinion the circumstances are such as to require the performance thereof.
That requires them to perform a duty. Under the proposed new Clause, I respectfully suggest, the Minister's powers are very much stronger, because he may give directions as to the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty, as may appear to him to be expedient. He can not only tell local authorities that they have to perform a duty which has been imposed upon them; he can go further. He can tell them how they are to do it. The meaning of the words:
give such directions as to the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty as appear to him to be expedient,
would enable him to tell them not only to do a job but also the manner in which they are to do it.
Therefore, I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will consider very seriously accepting the Amendment. The proposed new Clause, being much stronger than the provision which this House had approved in the Bill, does, I think, make it necessary for us to scrutinise very carefully the Minister's powers. If this House entrusts local authorities with certain powers surely it can only be right that, if the Minister seeks then to override those powers, the local authorities concerned should have the right to come to this House and to challenge the Minister's action. That is all we are asking. If the local authority feel that the Minister has acted in a way that is unfair to the exercise of their discretion, they should be able to come to this House, which has given them the powers, and to say: "Is it right or is it not right that the Minister should take away from us now, in this particular case, the powers with which we have been entrusted?"

Mr. McEntee: I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment. All I can see in it is a possibility of very long delay and I do not see that there is anything to be said in its favour, Anybody who has served upon a local education authority, as I have for many years, will agree that in dealing with the Board of Education we have not found them unreasonable. Occasionally, we may have differed from the Board, but we have always found them willing to listen to any reasons that we put forward, and to consider any suggestions we had to make. What does the Lords Amendment propose to do? It proposes, if a dispute arises between some local body and the local authority, or between some person and the local authority, that if the person or local body represents to the Minister that a decision of the local authority is unreasonable he shall have a right to appeal to the Minister against the decision of the local authority. That is a perfectly sound thing to have and I am glad that individual citizens or local bodies who cannot come to an agreement with their local education authority should have the right to go to the Minister and ask him to act as arbitrator.
In a case like that I am sure that the local authority would not have reason to fear the decision of the Minister. I cannot see any possibility of it. It is suggested, in the Amendment by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) that the matter shall lie on the Table of the House for 40 days, but it may have to lie there for much longer than 40 days, because Parliament may have adjourned for some purpose for more than four days. If Parliament adjourned for any period more than four days, that period has to be taken into consideration and has not to be reckoned in the 40 days. Thus, it might go on for a couple of months while something of very great importance to the local authority is held up. It does not follow that Parliament will agree to the matter in question or will consider it, because it might be a very long time before the Leader of the House can find an opportunity for Parliament to give any consideration to the matter in order to clear up what, after all, may be only a very small dispute. I feel that we cannot afford to introduce new machinery to deal with disputes between the local persons or body and


the local education authority, and therefore I hope that the Minister will not accept the proposed new procedure, which will hold up the ordinary business of the local education authority perhaps for a very long period. The more I examine the Amendment the less I find myself in agreement with it.

Mr. Tinker: This is a very attractive Amendment and makes an appeal to anybody, on its face value. When you suggest to a democrat that, before anything is agreed to, it must come before the House of Commons, he is inclined to agree; but in this case we have to ask ourselves whether the proposals now being made will cause delay. Local authorities may think they have a chance to lay complaints before the Minister but to let a matter lie on the Table for 40 days causes a big delay. We have had so much delay over the Education Bill altogether that we do not care to cause more delay and make it more difficult for the Minister to get through his work. I felt there was a lot to be said for the Amendment to the proposed new Clause and for the arguments of the hon. and learned Member who moved it, until I considered the matter carefully. The result is that I have come down on the side of the Minister and I hope that he will try to persuade the hon. and learned Member not to press his Amendment.

Mr. Lipson: I so often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that I am sorry to differ from him this time. The question at issue is not delay but whether the delay is unreasonable or undue in the light of the issues at stake. I believe that time would be found for any big question to be discussed in Parliament which, upon a big matter, ought to have the final word. On the other hand, I cannot believe that in a small, petty matter the Minister would go so far as to override the local authority. I am sure there would have to be a grievance of substance before he took action. The local authorities feel very strongly about the matter.

Mr. McEntee: No.

Mr. Lipson: I am sure that Parliament would approve of local authorities being jealous of their rights and privileges. If we are jealous of ours, let us recognise

the right of the local authorities to be jealous of theirs.

Mr. McEntee: Will the hon. Member give some authority for his statement that the local authorities feel very strongly about this matter? I have not found it, and I am in touch with them.

Mr. Lipson: My authority is that I have been appealed to by the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees. I think the hon. Member will admit that it is a responsible body. I am told that the Association of Municipal Corporations also, through their responsible officers, have made representations. The hon. Member could not have more responsible authorities than those.

Mr. McEntee: Is the hon. Member informing the House that he has personally received representations from those authorities expressing these views on the matter?

Mr. Lipson: My answer is "Yes." I have had a letter from the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees asking me to support the Amendment which is sponsored and approved by the Association of Municipal Corporations. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) is recognised as one who can express the views in this House of responsible local authorities. My hon. Friend can take it for granted that there is strong feeling among local authorities on this matter because they feel that their rights are in question. They have been given certain powers, and if there is any question that they are not using their powers properly or are abusing them, that issue ought to be determined by Parliament.
I am surprised that anybody should suggest that Parliament should refuse to maintain its proper role as the watchdog of the Executive. Some of us are very concerned at the power which the Executive are increasingly taking to themselves at, the expense of other authorities, and that makes it all the more necessary for Parliament to act. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will turn a kindly eye on the Amendment. The local authorities were not enamoured of the Clause but they are not asking that the proposed new Clause might not be accepted. They ask, as I think they are justified in asking, that Parliament should ultimately have the last word.

Mr. Butler: I fully realise the reasons which animated my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) in moving and seconding the Amendment to the proposed new Clause. If I put the matter in its proper perspective the House may get a rather different idea of the Clause from that which it has had from the speeches which have been made, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not press the matter. The Clause is of importance to the operation, and to the judicial and fair working, of the Bill as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth drew the attention of the House to Clause 93 (2) of the Bill, as it originally left the Commons.
He made out that the new Clause which hon. Members have been asked to consider is, in fact, more drastic and, so to speak, less fair to the authority and the individual than the Clause which was originally passed by this House in the Bill as sent to another place. Every shred of evidence I have had, including the best legal advice I could obtain, is to the contrary. Our idea in redrafting this Clause is to make it more fair, more just and less draconian than the original Subsection to Clause 93. We have made two definite changes in the new Clause which is to be substituted for Clause 93 (2). The new Clause D says:
If the Minister is satisfied, either on complaint by any person or otherwise, …
thus introducing the question of a complaint by any person, or otherwise, that any local education authority or managers or governors of any county or auxiliary school are doing this or that. It must be first proved by complaint. We have also brought into the new Clause the words "proposing to act unreasonably …"It has been thought, according to all the best advice we have been able to get, that by these two Amendments we have made this Clause less drastic than that originally passed by this House. That is the legal interpretation of the Clause as put before the House to-day. We are faced with a Clause which, in my view, is phrased in more equitable and just terms than the original Clause. Yet hon. Members are desirous of amending this Clause, which is in fairer terms than that which they have previously agreed to.

Sir J. Mellor: Is it correct to say that whereas Clause 93 (2) merely empowered the Minister to give directions to the local authority to perform a duty the new Clause empowers him to go further, and to tell them how they are to perform the duty?

Mr. Butler: I am advised that the original wording requiring the managers or governors to perform a duty was equally strict, and that the hon. Member's apprehensions are not as powerful as he would imagine. I think the new wording is more equitable than the old in both respects, in regard to the complaint and in regard to the word "unreasonably." We are faced with the provision in the Bill to which the hon. and learned Member for Ilford wishes to make, an Amendment, which is to the effect that any directions made by the Minister, if they aggrieve an authority, shall be put before Parliament, and left, as the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) said, to lie for what may be many more than 40 days. Let us examine that position. In my view the hon. and learned Member for Ilford's position has that main weakness. This Clause is being sought by the Government, and we are asking the House to agree with the Amendment brought from another place, because we consider it necessary in the last resort to have the power in the Bill in the hands of some person, we suggest the Minister, to deal with the small questions of disagreement which may arise between an authority and a person. I fail to see, in the first place, why my hon. and learned Friend should insist that only if the authorities were aggrieved should the matter be brought before Parliament. This Clause is inserted as a protection for the citizen and the ordinary person. If he is to be fair he must insist that the aggrieved person shall have his case in every matter, small or large, brought before the attention of Parliament. This Clause gives the opportunity to the Minister to intervene and settle small questions of friction which may arise between an authority and a person in the operation of this Bill. I claim it would be utterly unjust if only when one side, the authority, was aggrieved, should the matter be brought before Parliament, and that when a citizen was aggrieved, it should not. That is the main difficulty I see in my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Hutchinson: Will my right hon. Friend accept an Amendment to my Amendment on those lines? I attempted to safeguard him against frivolous complaints.

Mr. Butler: Why it should be frivolous I fail to see. It will be the Minister's duty to keep the balance fairly between the authority and the person. I could not accept an Amendment to the hon. and learned Member's Amendment on the lines just suggested for the reasons which I am about to indicate in the second part of my speech.
Let us examine the type of cases which this Clause may affect. I think it permissible to take one or two minutes on this, because it obviously interests the House, and my hon. and learned Friend has evinced every sign of sincerity and interest. Cases I might mention are very simple. Under Clause 32, to take one Clause at random—I ought to know the Bill fairly thoroughly by now—an authority, after notice served on any parent, may require that parent to submit his child for examination by the medical officer. If there is an unreasonable exercise of function in that particular matter it should come to the attention of the Minister, and the Minister could quite rightly decide in a fair and just manner the issue as between the parties concerned, the authority and the person. I claim that an issue like that is quite unsuitable to be laid before Parliament, especially for an indefinite number of days, perhaps as long as three months.
To take another instance, Clause 48 deals with the provision of board and lodging otherwise than at boarding schools or colleges and hon. Members will remember that, in the course of our deliberations, we inserted an Amendment in Committee that as far as practicable effect should be given by the authority to the wishes of the parents of the child or to the wishes of the young person, as the case may be, in respect of the religious denomination of the person with whom he will reside. That is to say if a child is sent away from home we want the authority, if possible, to put it in a home of which the occupants are of the same denomination as the child. We inserted that on purpose, to ease the situation for children who may have to leave their homes. It is quite possible

that in a matter like that there might be a small dispute. In that case, surely it is better to give an ordinary citizen a right of appeal to the Minister. Surely it is unreasonable to ask that it should be brought before Parliament and laid for what might be a considerable number of days.
In the Seventh Schedule—I could mention many other examples where friction might arise—it is laid down that associations of teachers shall be brought into the conferences which have to be set up under that Schedule for the purpose of preparing an agreed syllabus. Suppose there was a slight difference of opinion as to which associations of teachers should be brought in in a particular area, and the conference were held up, surely it would be unreasonable to bring a matter like that before Parliament for 40 days, and involve Members in issues with which they could not have time to deal. Hon. Members will see there is no analogy between the directions which would be given under this Clause and regulations. Under this new Clause individual cases would be dealt with. Regulations, on the other hand, are of general application. This is where my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford has on a very rare occasion in his life fallen into error. I think he has confounded the situation. He imagines that here we are dealing with a provision to override the discretion which Parliament has given to authorities. That is not the case at all.
As I envisage the matter this is a reserved power which any constitutionalist would really prefer not to have but is necessary for the smooth working of the Bill. It is, in fact, a judicial power reserved by the Minister in cases of friction in small matters which have been dealt with "unreasonably." It is not analogous with the case of a Regulation in which Parliament has given the main direction which the Minister is deliberately flouting by administrative action. It has nothing to do with the argument coming into fashion in Parliament today. Also I would add that it might be dangerous to ask me to lay more Regulations before Parliament. I might forget them and get into difficulties such as arose at Question Time to-day.
I am not deliberately seeking this Clause, but I think it necessary for the smooth operation of the Bill and as a sort


of reserve power. As I have also said, the issues involved are not suitable in my view for laying before Parliament. I will say that I do not believe in delegated legislation and as one who believes in the control of Parliament I still think I am perfectly right in recommending this Clause to the House for the reasons I have given. The Minister of Education is one to whom I think such quasi judicial functions can be given in connection with this sort of thing. We have special functions to carry out at the Board in connection with our charitable trusts and other matters. The Bill reserves these functions to the Minister and in that it has met with approval. I give an undertaking that the Clause will be operated in the proper spirit and not in the wrong spirit in the future.

Mr. R. Morgan: I rise to oppose the Amendment to the proposed new Clause and support the Minister in the statement he has made. I regard the Amendment which has come from another place as a very wholesome one. When yearly reports come forward showing how this magnificent Bill is working in the country, if we adopt the Lords Amendment we shall be able to say to the Minister, "Why have you not intervened in the case of such and such a thing? Why has it not been carried out according to the tenets of the Bill?" We should not have the delaying action suggested in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) but should throw on to the Minister of Education the direct responsibility of seeing that all these authorities are not held up in any programme they may have before them and in a way described here as unreasonable. I look forward to the time when the Minister of Education—as we are now to call him—will be able to say in any difficulty on which agreement cannot be reached: "Here is your court of appeal." I cannot imagine that any Minister of Education, either now or in the future, would not give reasonable consideration to any dispute that arises. Therefore, I should like to raise my voice against the hon. and learned Member's Amendment and in favour of the Amendment that has come from another place.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 50, line 30, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 18, at end, insert new Clause E:
(Pupils to be educated in accordance with wishes of parents.)
In the exercise and performance of all powers and duties conferred and imposed on them by this Act the Minister and local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Clause, which relates to the wishes of the parents, was inserted to take the place of Clause 8, paragraph (b), which we left out. I said that Clause 8 (b) pervaded the whole Bill, but on reconsideration we felt this method of having a complete Clause achieved our object rather better than the other system suggested. I therefore suggest that it would be wise to agree with the Lords in the Amendment. It will entail certain consequential Amendments.

Question put, and agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made to the Bill:

In page 50, line 26, leave out "person" and insert "pupil."

In line 29, leave out "person" and insert "pupil."

In line 30, leave out "person" and insert "pupil."—[Mr. Butler.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 56, line 8, agreed to.

CLAUSE 72.—(Inspection of educational establishments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 56, line 24, leave out "Any," and insert:
Subject as hereinafter provided, the religious instruction given in any school maintained by a local education authority shall not be subject to inspection by any person who is not one of His Majesty's Inspectors or a person authorised by the Minister or by the authority: Provided that the.

Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, to leave out from "inspection," to "authority," in line 6, and insert:
except by one of His Majesty's Inspectors or by a person ordi-


narily employed for the purpose of inspecting secular instruction either as an additional inspector appointed by the Minister or as an officer in the whole-time employment of a local education.
The Clause when it left this House had a definite reference to a minister of religion being excluded from inspecting syllabus religious instruction. It has been thought, and representations have been made, that this unduly discriminated against a minister of religion, who naturally may be said to have a great interest in this question. The Government, therefore, had in mind to amend the Clause as it left this House and so to phrase matters that no discrimination would seem to be made against a minister of religion. That was the reason why an Amendment was originally made in this Clause. It does not mean that the Government have departed from their original view that in general inspection of denominational religious instruction should be carried out by someone from the diocese or by someone in whom the managers have an interest, and syllabus instruction should be inspected by His Majesty's inspectors. That is the position which the Government have always taken up. It is a position which I have taken up in this Bill and it is a position which this new draft Amendment retains. This is a matter to which many interests outside this House attach great importance and the effect of the new draft is that any person inspecting the syllabus instruction must be one of His Majesty's inspectors or a person employed for the purpose of inspecting secular instruction ordinarily employed, say, an additional inspector appointed by the Minister or an officer in the whole time employment of the local education authority. Therefore, the Amendment does maintain the position taken up by the Government throughout, and is agreeable to the interests concerned, to the denominations and to tie teachers themselves.
On the question of the entry of an incumbent into a school, the position, as I see it, is that the practice in various parts of the country, whereby a Minister of a religious denomination is invited into a school in an advisory capacity to advise the head teacher or a member of his staff in the giving of religious instruction, can and certainly should go on. It is a practice which is very much welcomed by certain teachers and is very successful

in many schools, and it is one to which the denominations attach great importance. There is nothing in this Clause, as amended, to prevent the acceptance by a minister of a religious denomination of an invitation from the head teacher to enter the school in an advisory capacity. The denominations, I have reason to believe, attach great importance to this, but the fact that a visit in an advisory capacity is permitted by the Clause as amended does not alter the rule as to inspection.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 57, line 45, agreed to.

CLAUSE 75.—(Registration of pupils at schools).

Lords Amendment: In page 58, line i6, at end, insert:
the procedure by which a child may become a registered pupil and.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of this Amendment is to enable the Minister to authorise local education authorities not to admit a child immediately it reaches the age of five if that date occurs in the middle of a term. In this respect it re-enacts Section 38 (1) of the existing Education Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 55, line 28, agreed to.

CLAUSE 79.—(Powers of local education authorities to accept gifts for educational purposes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 59, line 34, leave out "provision," and insert "establishment."

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is consequential upon the Amendment that we accepted to Clause 12 and the Amendment that I moved, consequential to that Amendment, on page 59. It makes the matter clearer.

Mr. E. Harvey: Could we have a little clearer explanation from the Minister as to the difference in meaning between the two words?

Mr. Tinker: We have this Amendment Paper before us, and it is all jumble. We are asked to disagree, and we do not know what we are disagreeing with.

Mr. Butler: With the permission of the House, I will make a fuller explanation. What I said was technically correct, that we have accepted an earlier Amendment to Clause 12. I moved an Amendment, on Clause 79, page 59, line 34, to leave out "the provision of a new county school," and technically it is necessary now to move that we disagree with the Lords in the Amendment to leave out "provision" and to insert "establishment," to get us back into order. It is necessary to get back the word "provision," and thus to disagree with the Lords, as my original Amendment contained the word "provision" and not "establishment." It is a highly technical piece of drafting to get my Amendment on Clause 12 into order.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 61, line 42, agreed to.

CLAUSE 83.—(Remuneration of teachers.)

Lords Amendment: In page 62, line 13, leave out "Regulations made by the Minister shall," and insert:
(1) The Minister shall secure that for the purpose of considering the remuneration of teachers there shall be one or more committees approved by him consisting of persons appointed by bodies representing local education authorities and teachers respectively, and it shall be the duty of any such committee to submit to the Minister, whenever they think fit or whenever they may be required by him so to do, such scales of remuneration for teachers as they consider suitable; and whenever a scale of remuneration so submitted is approved by the Minister he may by order.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an old friend, in which the House has interested itself before, in rather a dramatic manner. This is the Clause dealing with the method of settling the scales of salaries of teachers. There is nothing particularly remarkable in the redrafting. The original draft was open to the objection that the ultimate responsibility for drafting the scales of salaries would rest with the Minister. Such an arrangement would have been at

variance with the present position, whereby the Burnham Committees frame the scales and the Minister accepts or rejects them for the purpose of grant. This new Sub-section retains that principle intact. The value of this is that we hope to continue the traditions of the Burnham Committee and its great record in the same manner as before. Sub-section (2) maintains the practice, whereby the Burnham Committees appoint as their chairmen persons nominated by the Board. This enables us to continue as before the operation of the Burnham machinery.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 66, line 7, agreed to.

CLAUSE 92.—(Compensation of persons prejudicially affected by this Act).

Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 23, leave out from "the," to "suffers," in line 26, and insert:
extinguishment or transfer by this Act of any functions exercisable by the council of any county district, or the transfer by this Act of any officers employed by any such council, any person who, immediately before the date of the commencement of Part II of this Act, was an officer employed by that council or by the council of the county in which the county district is situated.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
When the Bill was previously before us, my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) brought before the Committee the case of an officer of a county council who might be damaged by the passing of this Bill, through people being brought in by the Part III authorities, who might take his job. A series of Amendments to the Clause that we are now considering, to which we ask the House to agree, provides that if a person is so damaged he shall be entitled to the usual compensation. I think that that meets the points that were raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hutchinson: I desire to acknowledge the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and to say that the Amendments with which we are asked to agree meet the case which my hon. Friend and I raised on the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. McEntee: Does the Amendment include not only those who are generally


called officials of the county council, but those who are employed in lower capacities, such as schoolkeepers?

Mr. Ede: Yes, it includes every officer and servant of the authority.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 67, line 38, agreed to.

CLAUSE 93.—(Powers of Minister in default of local education authorities or managers or governors.)

Lords Amendment: In page 68, line 1, leave out Sub-section (2).

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This leaves out a Sub-section which has been replaced by the new Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 68, line 20, agreed to.

CLAUSE 94.—(Grants in aid of education services.)

Lords Amendment: In page 69, line 39, after "may," insert "after consultation with them."

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment provides for the variation of trust deeds, and it ensures that the appropriate persons to be consulted before such alterations are made are, in fact, consulted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 70, line 6, agreed to.

CLAUSE 96.—(Maintenance contributions payable by the Minister in respect of aided schools and special agreement schools.)

Lords Amendment: In page 71, line 12, at end, insert:
in respect of alterations to the school buildings and repairs to the school premises.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment makes the Clause consistent with Clause 14 (3, a),which we amended earlier.
Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.)
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 71, line 20, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 71, line 20, leave out from "school," to "is," in line 22, and insert:
or schools proposed to be established shall be established in substitution for a school or schools to be discontinued, then, if the school to be transferred or any school to be established in pursuance of the order.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment makes this Clause consistent with Clause 15, on which we had a Debate earlier today.
Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
Lords Amendment: In page 71, line 26, leave out from "exceeding" to end of line 30, and insert "one half thereof."

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
When a school is substituted for another school, it may not always be the same body of governors who will be managing the new school. The Bill, as drafted, rather assumes that the substituted school would have the same body of managers or governors. This Amendment is necessary to enable the appropriate people to receive the grant.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 72, line 4, agreed to.

CLAUSE 98.—(Power of the Minister to make grants in respect of aided schools and special agreement schools established for the accommodation of displaced pupils.)

Lords Amendment: In page 72, line 26, leave out from "of," to "its," in line 28.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, and the next—in line 29, after "education" insert "or in consequence of a substantial reduction in the number of pupils for whom education is to be provided in it"—make it clear what exactly a displaced pupil is.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 73, line 29, agreed to.

CLAUSE 100.—(Contribution between local education authorities.)

Lords Amendment: In page 74, line 8, at end, insert:
;and
(b) where immediately before the date of the commencement of Part II of this Act a former authority had been required under the Education (Institution Children) Act, 1923, to make payments to another former authority in respect of any child and was liable to make such payments, then, so long as the first-mentioned former authority would have remained so liable if that Act had not been repealed, the child shall he deemed to belong to the area of the local education authority responsible for the liabilities of the first-mentioned former authority.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Bill alters the law as laid down by the Education (Institution Children) Acts. Unless this paragraph were inserted, such cases would have to come up for review, and liability in certain cases might be shifted from the shoulders of one authority to those of another. In view of the shortage of local authority's staffs, and the undesirability of creating the amount of work which this would involve, it is enacted by this Amendment that existing liabilities will still remain the liabilities of the local authorities that now bears them. In the event of a child ceasing to be liable and becoming liable at some future date, the child will have to be treated under the enactments of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 75, line 24, at end, insert new Clause F:
(Power of Minister to authorise local education authorities to provide temporary assistance for voluntary schools.)
If upon representations made to him by any local education authority the Minister is satisfied that by reason of difficulties arising out of war conditions or out of conditions occasioned by the coming into operation of Part II of this Act temporary accommodation for children who are, or whose parents desire them to be, registered pupils at any voluntary school is required until permanent accommodation can be provided for them by the managers or governors of the school in accordance with the development plan for the area, the Minister may authorise the local education authority to provide, or assist in providing, such temporary accommodation in accordance with arrangements approved by him, so, however, that any such authorisation shall be withdrawn as soon as there has, in the opinion of the Minister, been sufficient opportunity for permanent accommodation for

such pupils to be provided by the managers or governors of the school.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think I should say a word about this new Clause, which gives power to the Minister to authorise local authorities to provide temporary assistance for auxiliary schools, and, if hon. Members will look at the terms of the Clause, they will see that the Minister has to be satisfied that, by reason of difficulties arising out of war conditions or conditions occasioned by the coming into operation of Part II of this Act, temporary accommodation ought to be provided. The fact is that we have been having to undertake certain temporary assistance to our voluntary schools under Section 23 of the Education Act, 1921. As the Bill stands, local authorities would not be able to continue such emergency temporary assistance to voluntary schools, unless we put this in the Clause. I say "temporary," because there is no question of permanent assistance being given under this new Clause. Otherwise, the whole balance of the Bill would be upset. Hon. Members have asked about temporary assistance in some cases, for reasons at present arising out of war conditions. It may be necessary to set up huts or some such temporary accommodation, and we have been glad to have the powers under the Section of the Education Act which I mentioned to deal with these emergency matters.
The other emergency situation arises after the introduction of Part II of this Act, and will mostly arise on the raising of the age. It would be very wrong if there were no emergency provision to tide over managers or governors of a voluntary school during the period of the raising of the age, although this Clause will not permit of such assistance being given permanently. In these circumstances, it seems wise to insert the Clause, but it does not affect the permanent operation of the long-term provision for bringing up the standards of voluntary schools. It is necessary under war conditions and in the emergency which may arise on bringing the Act into operation.

Mr. McEntee: Will the Minister say if there is any provision in the Bill to deal with a situation such as we frequently meet now in regard to temporary buildings and the licensing of temporary buildings?


What we find in practice is that, if we license some factory or perhaps a church or other building in an emergency for a temporary purpose, that building is put up and there is the greatest difficulty in the world for years afterwards in getting the person, to whom the temporary licence has been issued, to erect a permanent building. We find that plans for all kinds of premises are sent to local authorities, and that the people say "If you are willing to give us a licence for this temporary building, we hope to be in a position in a very short time to remove this not very pretty thing, which is purely temporary," but, once it gets up, like the houses built during the last war, which we were told were purely provisional and temporary, but are still there, it is very difficult to remove. In this case, I agree entirely that circumstances may arise during and after the war which make this necessary, but I think local authorities should be given very strict powers.

Mr. Ede: This Bill deals with no other buildings than educational buildings, but some schools have been erected in the past as temporary schools which have long outlived their usefulness and frequently become great hindrances. In this Bill, this provision is safeguarded by the development plan, and the local authority will have to show how it proposes to develop the various schools in its area. Immediately after the war, in areas where considerable damage has been done, it may be essential that temporary provision should be made, but the development plan ought to indicate a date at which it will be proposed to erect a permanent school to take the place of the temporary one, and when the development plan is confirmed by the education order, this provision becomes mandatory upon the local education authority.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 76, line 21, agreed to.

CLAUSE I07.—(Interpretation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 76, line 28, leave out "young people's," and insert "county."

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I have given notice of a manuscript Amendment, to leave out the words "or

young people's college" and to insert "college or institution." The wording was found not to be correct in the definition Clause and it followed that we should amend it in order to make the Bill read correctly.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to, in page 76, line 28, leave out "young people's college," and insert "college or institution."— [Mr. Butler.]
Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 76, line 43, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 76, line 45, leave out from "authority" to "and" in page 77, line 1, and insert:
for the purpose of securing, so far as is practicable, that the character of the school as a voluntary school is preserved and developed, and, in particular, that the school is conducted in accordance with the provisions of any trust deed relating thereto.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a redefinition which was thought advisable in order to meet certain representations made in regard to the constitution of the body of managers. I hasten to add that the redraft is not in the interests of the denomination only since it is under this redraft it would be possible to appoint a Free Churchman or to the body of-foundation managers. This Amendment carries out an undertaking given earlier, and I think it improves and clarifies the constitution of the managerial body of the school.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 80, line 16, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 80, line 25, at end, insert:
(4) Where before the date of the commencement of Part II of this Act a syllabus of religious instruction had been adopted by a former authority for use in any school which after that date is a county school or an auxiliary school or for any class or description of pupils, that syllabus shall be deemed to be the agreed syllabus for that school, or for that class or that description of pupils as the case may be, until a syllabus in substitution therefor is prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Seventh Schedule to this Act and adopted or deemed to be adopted thereunder or until the expiration of twelve months after the said date whichever first occurs.
Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line to leave out "twelve months," and to insert "two years."
It has been represented that 12 months is an insufficient time in which to prepare an agreed syllabus, and that might well be the case. The agreed syllabuses now in use have taken longer than 12 months to prepare, and the Government are accordingly in favour of giving a longer time. We suggest that we agree with the Lords after we have substituted, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, two years as the period in which an agreed syllabus might be framed.

Mr. Harvey: It is obvious that the Amendment proposed by the Minister is a great improvement because there might be real difficulty in getting a syllabus satisfactorily arranged within one year. But could the President of the Board of Education tell the House what might happen if agreement was not reached? There is, as far as I can see, no provision made for that.

Mr. Butler: May I, with the permission of the House, clarify the matter? If my hon. Friend will turn to the provisions of the Seventh Schedule he will see that we made an Amendment whereby a body of persons is set up by the Minister to frame a syllabus if agreement has not been reached locally.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 8, line 27, agreed to.

CLAUSE 109.—(Saving as to persons of unsound mind, inmates of penal establishments, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In page 81, line 36, leave out "any penal establishment," and insert, "pursuance of an order made by any court."

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of these words is to remove the rather unpleasant idea that the words "detained in any penal establishment" were apt to apply to persons detained in approved schools. They were not intended to apply to such people and that is the reason for the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 82, line 39, agreed to.

CLAUSE I13.—(Amendment of enactments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 82, line 40, at end, insert:
(b) for references therein to a school certified by the Board of Education, in accordance with the provisions of Part V of the Education Act, 1921, as suitable for providing education for blind, deaf, defective or epileptic children, there were substituted references to a special school.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This matter was accidentally omitted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 84, line 14, agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Local Administration.)

Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 38, after "council," insert:
immediately before the date on which the board became the local education authority for the area thereof.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object is to ensure that compensation for loss of office or diminution of emoluments shall be secured to those officers whose authorities' powers pass over to a joint education board.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 96, line 9, agreed to.

SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Procedure for preparing and bringing into operation an agreed syllabus of religious instruction.)

Lords Amendment: In page 96, line 16, leave out paragraph (c), and insert:
(c) such associations representing teachers as, in the opinion of the authority, ought, having regard to the circumstances of the area, to be represented;

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment clarifies the duties of local education authorities in determining


what associations of teachers shall be represented at the Conference.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 97, line 12, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 97, line 19, leave out from "appoint," to end of line 20, and insert:
to prepare a syllabus of religious instruction a body of persons having experience in religious instruction which shall, so far as is practicable, be of the like representative character as is required by paragraph 2 of this Schedule in the case of a conference.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This explains what I said earlier in reply to an hon. Member.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 97, line 31, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 97, line 35, at end, insert:
12. Whenever a local education authority are of opinion (whether upon representations made to them or otherwise) that any agreed syllabus for the time being adopted by them ought to be reconsidered, the authority shall cause to be convened for that purpose a conference constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule. If the conference convened for the reconsideration of any syllabus unanimoulsy recommend that the existing syllabus should continue to be the agreed syllabus or that a new syllabus should be adopted in substitution therefor the authority may give effect to the recommendation of the conference, but if the authority report to the Minister that the conference are unable to reach unanimous agreement, or if it appears to the Minister that the authority have failed to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the conference, the Minister shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 10 of this Schedule, and paragraph II thereof shall apply accordingly.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Could a misprint be corrected, Mr. Speaker? It would be unfortunate to put into an Act of Parliament a word which has hitherto not appeared anywhere in the English language. I refer to the word "unanimoulsy."

Mr. Speaker: That will certainly be put right.
Question put, and agreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
Committee nominated of Mr. Butler, Mr. Charleton, Mr. Furness, Mr. Edmund Harvey, Mr. Joseph Henderson, Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson, Major Mills, Mr R. Morgan, Colonel Sir John Shute, and Mr. Parker.
Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Butler.]
To withdraw immediately.
Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Butler.]

VALIDATION OF WAR-TIME LEASES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Validation of tenancies for the duration of the war.)

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "create," and to insert "grant or provide for the grant of."
This Amendment, and a number of others which stand in my name, are really to meet a drafting point. We thought we would use words which cover both cases, but they were not absolutely clear, and this and the ensuing Amendment are designed to meet this.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 8, leave out "take effect as an agreement for," and insert:
have effect as if it granted or provided for the grant of."—[The Attorney-General.]

Colonel Clarke: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, to leave out paragraph (c).
In moving this Amendment, I feel I ought to disclose my interest in the matter by saying that as a landowner I may possibly be affected at some time by the Bill. I move this Amendment with a certain amount of diffidence because I know that this Bill has come from another place, and has been fully considered by a number of capable people. In fact,


when I saw the names of those who had debated it, in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I felt a very small David with a very inadequate and smooth stone. Further, this Clause was meant to be a present to the agricultural industry. One does not like looking a gift horse in the mouth, but at the same time one knows the embarrassment of receiving a very large present one has not room for, so that it would have been better in some ways not to have received it at all. I feel that this may be a larger present than the industry really wants.
The Clause as it stands is rather 100 comprehensive. I understand that under Sections 23 and 25 of the Agricultural Holdings Act any lease that has been made for the duration of the war, and which has been run for upwards of two years, will be terminable only by due notice and after an interval of 13 months. The Clause says not less than one year or more than two. Probably, in practice, it will run to the nearest quarter day or to Michaelmas, the usually accepted end of the agricultural year, and if the date decided upon by Order in Council for the end of the war was 1st February it might be a year from the following Michaelmas before the lease was terminated. I feel that that might be an onerous condition in many cases, particularly in connection with leases entered into during the war period. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton Turton), in speaking on this matter on the Second Reading, quoted an instance which I beg leave to repeat. It may be that a farmer has had part of his farm, including the homestead, taken over by some authority like the War Department, and that the holding is unworkable because the buildings are not usable. In order to prevent as much land as possible going out of cultivation he gets a neighbour to take it over and cultivate it, probably at a considerably lower rent than is normally paid because there are no buildings with it. As soon as the war comes to an end, and the War Department hands the farmer back his farmstead, he naturally wants to start farming as quickly as possible. He would not want to wait 13 months or 20 months or more if the war officially ended in December. Under Section 23 it appears to be impossible to contract out, to be able to make any conditions whereby it should be varied. It was suggested on

the Second Reading that the question of compensation might come in, but I do not think that that is the case. Only Sections 23 and 25 of the Act are referred to.
I feel that this Clause would not altogether have the effect intended, particularly as regards the intention of the parties when the agreement was entered into. The converse case is that of a man who takes over an allotment or smallholding to produce food during the war, either for his family or as part of his war effort for the community. He would probably not want to carry that on for a long time, and it might be economically impossible, after the emergency was over. It was never the intention that he should do so. If the intention was in either case that this should be an ordinary year to year lease I think it would have been made out in the ordinary form and then, of course, the Agricultural Holdings Act is designed to control the running of leases of that sort. But these are exceptions and for these reasons I ask that this Clause be omitted or, better, that other words be inserted which will cover a number of cases it is intended to cover, but will also cover the possible hardships I have referred to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I desire to support the Amendment, although not on quite the same grounds, of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke). It seems to me that in one respect paragraph (c) is unnecessary, and that if it remains in the Bill its operation will be obscure. I express the opinion on the paragraph as it stands with a great deal of diffidence as it was introduced by a Noble Lord of great legal eminence in another place. If I understand the decision in Lace v. Chandler correctly that decision applies to agricultural holdings in a rather remarkable way. It appears to me that the lease of an agricultural holding for the duration of the war, under that decision, would take effect as a tenancy at will. Its operation as a tenancy at will is affected by the Agricultural Holdings Act, and without anything being put into the bill it appears to me that 12 months' notice, would, in view of the provisions of that Act, be required to terminate this tenancy so that agricultural holdings, having the protection of that Statute, appear to come into


a quite different category from any other form of tenancies for the duration of the war or hostilities.
I think it is unnecessary to provide for having one month's notice on top of that. This paragraph says:
 … this Subsection shall apply to that agreement subject to the provisions of Sections twenty-three and twenty-five of the said Act.
That seems a little obscure. Does it mean that 12 months' notice under the Agricultural Holdings Act will suffice, or mean that you have to give 13 months' notice under that Section of the Agricultural Holdings Act and not Sub-section (1) of this Clause? I should have thought that all you would have required to state in regard to this was that instead of a month's notice there must be the same notice as you get under the Agricultural Holdings Act.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I hope the Attorney-General will reject this Amendment. Although I speak with some diffidence, as I have not the same contacts with the land and its tenancies as the hon, and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) and the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I want to point out that the idea that paragraph (c) involves an addition to the ordinary agricultural notice is entirely misconceived. The term "subject to" is common enough in legislation and cannot be read as "in addition to." "Subject to" means that the ordinary terms for notice in agricultural tenancies will apply, and this provision was inserted for the protection of those who have taken tenancies of this kind. There can be no greater upset to anyone involved in the working of the land than to have his tenancy determined in between the seasons. The whole object of agricultural leases and terms for notice, and the period at which they may be brought to an end, is that you can have a change-over from one occupier to another at a time that fits in with the working of the land. This Sub-section, which it is now desired, for reasons that I cannot appreciate, to remove, is designed in order that, whenever a tenancy is determined, it shall be at a time which suits those working the soil.

The Attorney-General: To some extent my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) answered my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke). This

Sub-section is not in any sense intended as a special gift to the agricultural interests. It was inserted in accordance with the general principle of the Bill, which is that agreements for the duration of the war should have the effect which they would have had if they had not been held to be invalid in form under the decision of the Court of Appeal. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry that, if there had been an agricultural lease for the duration of the war—I very much doubt if there are any such—the provisions of Sections 23 and 25 of the Agricultural Holdings Act would have applied and that there was to be 12 months' notice taking effect at the end of the tenancy. We inserted this Clause because under an earlier part of the Section we had made a statutory provision for a month's notice. When that was put in we had in mind the ordinary residential lease, and not the agricultural lease, but we thought there was a definite danger of someone saying, "As the Statute provides for a month's notice, that overrides the statutory provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act with regard to notice for agricultural leases." We, therefore, thought it right to make it clear that the provision as to one month's notice shall not have that effect and that agricultural leases for the duration of the war shall take effect subject to those two Sections, as they undoubtedly would have done if it had been a valid agreement ab initio. Therefore, I think the Committee would be unwise to accept this Amendment. It really restores the status quo on the basis that the agreement is invalidated. Once the point was taken and it was pointed out that this one month's notice might create a difficulty, we thought it right to make an express provision to this effect.

Colonel Clarke: The matter is clearer to me now that I have heard my right hon. and learned Friend's explanation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: In page 2, line 31, leave out "create," and insert "grant or provide for the grant of."
In line 33, leave out "create," and insert "grant or provide for the grant of."
In page 3, line 1, leave out "creating," and insert "granting or providing for the grant of."


In line 12, leave out "take effect as an agreement for," and insert:
have effect as if it granted or provided for the grant of.
In line 13, leave out "for."
In line 20, at the end, add new Subsection:
(6) In this section the expression 'agreement' includes an agreement in the form of a lease."—(The Attorney-General.)
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Construction of tenancy agreements.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, after "war," to insert "or."
This and the next two Amendments are designed to meet a point raised on the Second Reading by hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes), Ashford (Mr. Smith) and Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed). The point was that under the Bill as originally introduced there was a provision that, if you found these words, the presumption was that it meant the whole war, including the war with Japan. That presumption could be rebutted by anything in the agreement or any evidence admissible under the ordinary rules but that was the presumption. It was pointed out with considerable force that probably, though not in all cases, in agreements entered into, at any rate before Pearl Harbour, the parties had in mind the European war, and we have accepted that view in this Amendment. We have also, under the third Amendment, widened the discretion of the court as to the evidence that is to be produced and we have said:
The court by whom any such agreement is construed may admit any evidence which in the opinion of the court may throw light on the intentions of the parties as to the meaning of the said expression.
It may well be that this Amendment, which alters the presumption in the case of agreements made before a certain date, does not really make a great change. It may well be that without this Amendment parties would have been able to go to the court and say, "This expression 'the duration of the war is ambiguous. Look at the date when we made our agreement. What was the war then?" It is possible that that would have been rebutting evidence but, on the whole, we

accept the view put forward in the Second Reading Debate and we think it better to make that the presumption. Of course, as I said on Second Reading, we shall not please everybody in the result, because so many different intentions and circumstances may have entered into people's minds, but we have thought it right slightly to widen the rule as to the admissibility of evidence so that the court, if it thinks proper, could allow in the special case what it might not otherwise consider admissible, such as some correspondence or negotiations between the parties, which made it clear that it was the whole war, or the period of service, or whatever it might be. I hope the Committee will feel that in this matter we have given careful consideration to the views which were expressed and that the Amendments which I am moving meet the points which were put by hon. Members.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I want to thank the Attorney-General for these Amendments. As one who pressed very hard for an Amendment on these lines, I feel deeply grateful. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) who supported me is not here. He feels as I do about the matter and would have liked to say a few words, but unfortunately he has been detained. I think that it will be much simpler now for people who made agreements to know whether they apply only to the European war. This Bill was meant among other things to relieve hardship and injustice, and was the result of the recent decision in the Court of Appeal, and these Amendments will definitely be beneficial to those who entered into agreements in the earlier part of the war before the war with Japan began. They will not now have to bring in extraneous evidence to support their contentions. Like many other hon. Members, I am greatly obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I was more concerned in the Debate on Second Reading to press for the general Amendment with regard to the admissibility of evidence than the point with which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) is concerned. I ventured to agree with the Solicitor-General that in all probability most courts would have regarded the date on which the agreement was entered into as being a relevant and, in most cases, a determining factor in


deciding whether the whole war or the war with Germany was meant. I was particularly concerned with the general question of the intention of the parties and the rather strict rules of evidence which bound the courts in the methods by which they might ascertain that intention. Under the terms of these Amendments the court is left with a wide discretion as to the evidence which they may look to in order to ascertain the true intention of the parties. This is as wide as I could have hoped for, and as wide as I would have drafted it myself if I were seeking to put an Amendment on the Paper. I am, therefore, grateful to the Attorney-General for having moved the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made:
In page 3, line 35, leave out from the beginning to "that," in line 36, and insert:
as respects those States with which His Majesty was at war at the date when the agreement was made, or, as the case may be, to the emergency occasioned thereby, unless it is shown that the parties intended.
In line 37, at the end, insert:
The court by whom any such agreement is construed may admit any evidence which in the opinion of the court may throw light on the intention of the parties as to the meaning of the said expression.
In page 4, line II, leave out "creating," and insert "granting or providing for the grant of."—[The Attorney-General.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Savings.)

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, to leave out paragraph (b).
The purpose of the paragraph is to permit those parties to agreements who gave notice before 13th June to terminate agreements to escape from the scope of the Bill. The 13th June was the date upon which the Attorney-General announced in the House that the Government would legislate in consequence of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Lace and Chandler, which was given last February. I am moving to leave out the paragraph because, although we do not like retrospective legislation and do not want to make it more retrospective than we can help, I do not see why we should go out of our way

to help parties who have broken their agreements to escape from the scope of the Bill. They may have been legally entitled to give notice, but, in my submission, they none the less broke agreements made in honour even if the notices which they gave were legally effective. It was not the fault of the victims of the decision in Lace v. Chandler that the Government delayed making any announcement till 13th June. Therefore, I do not think that the parties who received notice before that date to terminate agreements should be penalised in consequence of the Government's delay.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Might it not be convenient for the Committee to consider this Amendment with the Amendment standing in my name, in page 4, line 23, at the end, to insert:
( ) if before the thirteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-four, in reliance upon the validity of such notice either the landlord has entered into any new legal obligation to let or sell the premises forming the subject matter of such agreement or any part thereof or the tenant has entered into any new legal obligation to rent or purchase other promises in lieu of such premises as aforesaid or if before the thirteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-four, the landlord has obtained possession of the premises.

The Chairman: If the Committee agree I have no objection, but I must point out that the hon. Member's Amendment does not appear to me to read correctly, nor does it appear to be in the proper place.

Sir J. Mellor: As I read the Amendment of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), it has the opposite effect to my Amendment, because it is inserted after the word "or" and, therefore, would tend to strengthen the paragraph rather than weaken it.

The Chairman: The two Amendments may be discussed together with the agreement of the Committee.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am rather taken by surprise to hear that my Amendment would be in Order if it were differently phrased. I will not deal with that point at the moment but will state the reason behind my Amendment even if it be incorrectly phrased. The object of the Bill is to give effect to the intentions of the parties when they entered into an agreement which has since been properly held by the Court of Appeal to be invalid. What appears to me to be the


case is that since the date of that decision many people may have jumped at the opportunity of getting out of obligations which they willingly entered into. I have had cases brought to my notice of landlords, on the one hand, giving notices which they could not have given prior to that decision, and, on the other hand, of tenants doing the same thing. The difficulty is to draw the line as to where we are to make the effect of this Bill retrospective. The Bill proposes that it should be retrospective to 13th June. As I see it, that has the effect that, if either a landlord or a tenant gave notice before 13th June, a notice which may be taking effect in December this year, it would still be effective and operative in spite of the Bill. It does not seem to me possible to put the parties back in a condition in which they were if, between the date of the Court of Appeal decision and 13th June, the possession of the premises subject to the agreement was given up; but it does seem to me possible for this House to provide that, where such a notice has been given and has not taken effect by 13th June, and where neither party entered into any form of legal obligation consequent upon the giving of that notice, that the notice should be treated as of no effect, the tenancy continuing as if the decision in Lace v. Chandler had not been arrived at.
I have not read the wording of my Amendment since I handed it in, but the intention of it is to provide that if the landlord had agreed to sell or to let the premises forming the subject of the original tenancy, the notice to quit would be effective. Similarly, if the tenant who received the notice to quit or had given it and, in the belief that the notice to quit given in the interval was valid, had entered into an agreement to rent or buy other premises, the notice to quit in those circumstances should be effective. It seems very hard indeed, particularly in the case of some officers. I have had brought to my notice the case of a colonel serving in the Army who has had notice from his landlord in respect of a lease which he thought was good for the duration of the war, and he now has to find other accommodation for his family. It is very hard that we should not be able to make the Bill retrospective, not only to 13th June but also to the extent that it

will invalidate all notices to quit which have not taken effect and where the parties to the original tenancy agreement have not entered into any agreement either in regard to the premises demised or for obtaining other premises.
Sir J. Mellor: If my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) would agree to alter his Amendment so that, instead of "line 33, at end, insert" he would put "line 33, after 'relationship,' insert"; and if he would also substitute "June" for "July," it would bring his Amendment very closely into line with my own, and it would then have my cordial support.

The Attorney-General: The position is difficult. We did our best to consider it before I, on behalf of the Government, gave my answer on 13th June. We have considered it very carefully since. I am bound to say that I feel a difficulty in accepting either of the Amendments and I will explain why. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) goes further than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). It is rather a strong order to go back and say that although, before the Government announced their intentions, a man gave a perfectly valid notice under the law, he is now to find it treated as an invalid notice and instrument. The difficulties are illustrated by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry. He is willing to cut out the case in which a landlord has entered into a new legal obligation to let or sell premises, or in which the tenant has entered into any new legal obligation to rent or purchase other premises.
Let me take a case which is just worthy of consideration. Suppose a landlord, the Court of Appeal having told him that he can get possession of his premises—being premises to which the Rent Restrictions Acts do not give protection to the tenant—in August, September or December and, on the strength of that, he gives up premises which he himself had had to take when he entered into the agreement with his tenant; if we accept the Amendment, he would be left unable to get possession of his own property, having already given up the property which he had taken to provide for himself or his business while the lease continued. Par-


liament would get itself into the greatest difficulty if it passed a provision which had that result.
There are other things which might have been done and expenses which might have been incurred, on the faith of this matter, other than entering into agreements for premises or giving notice to give up premises. A man might have moved his business commitments in anticipation that he would be able to get possession of new premises. I quite agree that the most important ones would be covered in the Amendment, nevertheless we should be launching this legislation in a territory in which we could not say confidently what hardship we should be inflicting upon people and what expenditure and profit we might not be rendering abortive, although at the time they incurred the expense, the parties were entitled to believe that the law would not be altered.
I have dealt very simply with cases which, I have no doubt, both my hon. Friends have had in mind, and I have also made it clear that I have no particular sympathy with anybody who sought to get out of a bargain made for the duration of the war because the Court of Appeal has said he could; but, on the general principle, the House must be vigilant m regard to retrospective legislation. If we sought to go beyond 13th June, we might inflict real hardship to an extent which it would be very difficult to justify. With some regret, therefore, I ask the Committee to support us in the decision which I originally gave on 13th June, which was to the effect that while the legislation would be retrospective to that date we did not think it right to validate notices given before that date.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he has rejected the Amendment with regret. I must confess that I would be prepared to support him more strongly if he had not mentioned that matter. This House has always been very jealous about retrospective legislation. It would be a very great temptation in times to come, when this country may be governed by Administrations with reforming zeal, if we gave them the precedent of retrospective legislation, particularly on a question of control over economic and industrial activities.
It would be a great temptation but I think it would be very wrong to do so. Simply the position is, I would remind the Committee, that the Court of Appeal decides that all leases of this order for the duration are invalid. There is the law of the land, and every citizen is entitled to rely upon the law. It is not the moment to say there has been a matter of intention, definite agreement or whatever it may be. Every citizen is entitled to rely upon the law of the land.

Sir Patrick Hannon: While a citizen is naturally so entitled, where the law operates unjustly against the citizen surely he has the right to look to the House of Commons for a remedy?

Mr. Hughes: I welcome that interruption. I agree that it is to this High Court that citizens look for the adjustment of an injustice, but in the meantime the position is that from the time the Court of Appeal declared that the citizen's rights were thus, the citizen was entitled to act upon that. Now the Attorney-General did not say so in terms, but in fact there is a good deal of retrospective legislation in this very Bill, and that is the extent to which this High Court of Parliament is prepared to go. It goes retrospectively to the point at which the Government hive declared they propose to act. That is quite fair to everyone, but up to the time when the Government, through the mouth of their leading Law Officer, declare that they intend to act, the citizens of this country are entitled to rely upon the law as it is declared in the Courts. We may find hard cases and argue on the basis that what was intended to be a gentleman's agreement shall be carried out, but the only basis on which the rule of law can he founded is to have respect for it, and give people the right to operate it and to support them in operating it. We here in this House can alter the law, but as long as people are operating under the law as it is laid down, there is no reason why we should condemn them for having done so.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member should address himself rather more particularly to the Amendment before the Committee. He seems to be making a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise, Major Milner, for having strayed outside the terms of the Amendment. I was dealing rather with the general principle embodied in this Amendment. I think I have said all I need to say and so I rise to support my right hon. and learned Friend in resisting these two Amendments, and I do so upon grounds which are somewhat wider than he himself put forward.

Sir J. Mellor: The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) has justified this Measure being retrospective to the date when the Government announced the decision to legislate, but he takes the view that it would be wrong to make it further retrospective than that. Arising out of that, I want to ask the Attorney-General if he will give an explanation as to why there was such a long delay after the decision of the Court of Appeal in February before announcing the decision to legislate in June, because it is arising out of that delay that the injustice, or I would say, hardship, has arisen for those people who received notice before 13th June. I feel that the responsibility is on the Government for that.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. He raised it on Second Reading, and I had intended to say a word or two on it on the Amendment. The position is this. As I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, a lease for the duration of the war is something which anybody can make, and has been able to make, in valid form, which is by making an agreement for a certain number of years, subject to the right to give notice at the end of the war. When the decision in Lace v. Chandler was published I remember thinking, "I wonder whether there are many cases, or any appreciable number of cases, in which people have failed, as did the parties here, to adopt a valid form to effect this result?" Because after all, if there have been practically no cases where an invalid form had been effected I do not think the House would have thought it right to legislate. The fact that we got practically no representations from anybody for a substantial period with regard to this decision rather led one to think there were very few cases which needed a Bill of this kind.
However, one had inquiries made into it at a fairly early stage and it turned out

that there were in our view quite enough cases—and the experience of Members in all parts of the Committee supports this—to make this a problem with which we had to deal. I am bound to say one or two people whose letters I have had complaining, and who are business people, I think might have helped us by writing rather sooner, and not waiting until after my announcement and have said, "We have a lease of this sort. Will you treat this as a matter of urgency?" We got substantially no representations until we set our own inquiries on foot. That is why prompt action was not taken. I quite agree that my hon. Friend is entitled to say that we should have moved a little more quickly, but everyone has a number of other things to deal with in these days. I think that some of the business companies and others who undoubtedly were affected by this might have assisted by bringing their cases before us so that we should have had evidence and we should not ourselves have to seek it out.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: With the general observations of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) on the retrospective effect of legislation I am in complete agreement, but the question here is not whether the Bill should be retrospective or not. The question raised by the Amendment is whether the retrospective effect to 13th June shall be really effective or not, and it seems to me we are not doing very much to put the position right if we are to allow a notice given before 13th June, which may operate in December, still to be valid although neither party may have done anything under the notice whatsoever. I think that a case has been made out by the Attorney-General for retrospective legislation in this connection.
Lace v. Chandler made no new law. The law was known right from the start. Perhaps owing to war circumstances these leases and agreements were not properly drawn. I have little sympathy with people who have discovered they have entered into an agreement which should be binding on their conscience even if it is not binding in law and take advantage of that fact. If the Attorney-General could on reconsideration put in words which not only referred to the two categories I thought of but also to the third one he thought of and I did not, it seems to me we should put this matter right to


a very great extent. It may be there are other cases we cannot think of and certain other hardships. I for one feel quite satisfied that if that could be provided for these three categories then the retrospective effect of this Bill to the 13th June would be most effective. If that is not so provided it seems to me that as the people who want to get out of obligations had ample opportunity to do so between the decision and 13th June, this Bill may in fact prove of very little effect. I would ask the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter.

Amendment negatived.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 43, at the end, to add:
(5) Nothing in the said Section one shall be taken, as bringing any agreement within Section twenty-eight of the Finance Act, 1931 (which requires instruments granting or transferring leases for a term of seven years or more to be produced to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue).
This is a drafting Amendment, and I think it is self-explanatory.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Application to Scotland.)

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, to leave out "create," and to insert "grant or provide for the grant of."
The Committee have already decided to adopt this form of words for England, and, in order to avoid possible misconception through there being different forms of words in the two countries, I am moving to adopt this form of words also in Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to the crown.)

This Act shall apply to agreements to which the Crown is a party.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I referred to this matter on the Second Reading. It is unlikely that the Crown has entered into invalid agreements for the duration of the war, but it is possible, because a great many things have to be done in a hurry by a large number of people in the course of the war, and, as a matter of principle, it is right that the Crown should not only have the benefit of this Act, but should be bound by the Orders in Council made under it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
TITLE.
Amendment made: Leave out "create," and insert, "grant or provide for the grant of."—[The Attorney-General.]
Bill reported, with Amendments (Title amended); as amended, considered.
Motion made, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—(King's Consent Signified.)—[The Attorney-General.]
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (NATIONALITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]

Miss Ward: In answer to a Parliamentary Question which I addressed to him, the Home Secretary used these words:
I ought to say that, according to my information, the number of such cases is extremely small."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July; Vol. 40r, C. 1870.]
I entirely disagree with my right hon. Friend. This institution of Parliament stands to protect the interests of the minority, as well as of the majority, and I rather regretted that my right hon. Friend, who is such a great Parliamentarian, should have used those words as an argument against the case that I was making. Let me give the background of the story which I am raising to-day on the Adjournment. As I understand, the position at present is that if a girl in the Services serving abroad has an illegitimate baby, even if it is proved that the father is a British subject, the child is not entitled to any nationality. Everyone with whom


I have discussed this position feels that it really is a most regrettable situation. I realise that I should at once run up against the rules of Order if I tried to discuss the law in this connection, but I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he cannot find some way, within the present law, to meet this quite intolerable position. I am certain that no one would like the unfortunate child to be the sufferer. The procedure is that when a girl has a baby she is subsequently sent home with her child, and then discharged. My right hon. Friend seemed to think that, as the child, or the parent of the child, could apply for its naturalisation at the age of 16, no real harm would be imposed on the child as a result of the present decision. I find myself in conflict with the Home Secretary on that point.
There are really two aspects of the situation. The first is that, by the time the child reaches the age of 16, the parent may have completely lost sight of the fact that the child has no nationality. That would be very easy to understand. Therefore, it is frightfully important that we should protect the interests of the child. One can well understand the position arising when, at the age of 16, or, if no naturalisation has been applied for, when the child reaches the age of 18 or 19, it might want to emigrate, or to take out an ordinary British passport to travel abroad. It might seek a livelihood by getting attached to a firm which had export interests, and the boy or girl might wish to go abroad. Then it would certainly discover that it had no nationality. I do not think we are justified in relying upon the parents to see that, at the age of 16, application is made to the Home Secretary for naturalisation.
My right hon. Friend took the view that no great harm would come to the child before the age of 16, but am I not right in raising this particular point? I do not know that this is true in regard to the whole of the Civil Service—I think it is—but I do know that, if, for instance, you want to enter the Post Office, you have to be the child of British parents. I am sure I am right in drawing attention to the fact that, if a child has no nationality and desires to sit for a Civil Service examination and enter the Post Office, it will not be permitted to do so. There is another point. There are certain educa-

tional advantages which might accrue to the child. It might sit for a scholarship, but one of the conditions often laid down is that the child must be of British parentage, and, therefore, I do not think the Minister is entitled to argue that a child will not be at any disadvantage until the age of 16.
The Home Secretary argued that I had no right—he did it very nicely and semihumourously—to enlist the War Office on my side. I am only too delighted to have the opportunity to enlist the sympathy of the War Office on my side, but let me put it this way. I happened to come across this specific fact about an illegitimate child when I was abroad, and it was raised by me with the Army authorities. Of course, when I was outside the boundaries of this island, I was not subject to the control of any Minister, whether the Secretary of State for War or the Home Secretary, but I realise that I put the Home Secretary in a difficult position when I raised the point. I am glad I was able to do so, because you have got to make use of everything and pit your wits against the Minister. It is a fact that those people who are responsible for Service girls were very perturbed about this position, and I naturally thought to myself, "Well, when I get home I shall only have to raise the matter with the Home Secretary to get his complete support." When I realised that I was not going to get his support, I very naturally, having confirmed in certain quarters that the War Office takes my view and not the Home Secretary's view, thought that here was a wonderful opportunity of bringing pressure to bear on the Home Secretary by quoting an important Government Department such as the War Office.
That is the whole story I have to tell. I am certain that no one in this country would like an innocent child to suffer, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to find some way whereby he can assure the protection of the position of the child. With all the ability and brains in the Home Office, I cannot believe that we have to leave the regularisation of the position of a child, or its naturalisation, until the age of 16, having regard to all the unfortunate happenings that can come upon humanity unless their position is well safeguarded and protected. All I want to ask the Minister


is to see if there is some way to meet this position so that a child shall not suffer before reaching the age of 16, and to ensure that, when it is 16, automatically, application will be made for naturalisation.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The hon. Lady has raised this matter in a modest and charming way, if I may say so, and I am glad that her journey to China enabled her to enlist the support of the military authorities in the Middle East, if not the War Office, upon her side in this matter. The case which my hon. Friend puts is that of a very small number of illegitimate children who have been born to women members of His Majesty's Forces serving overseas. It is perfectly clear that, under the law of British nationality, which is contained in the Act of 1914, children born in these circumstances outside British territory are not British subjects. The first question one asks in relation to British citizenship is, "Where was this person born?" That is the guiding factor in the great majority of cases, and children born abroad are not, in the ordinary way, British subjects by birth. They are so if they are born of British parents and if they are the first generation born overseas, but an illegitimate child, in the eyes of the law, has no father, and therefore, in the eyes of the law, as laid down in the Statute, such a child born abroad cannot be a British subject by birth.
My right hon. Friend, obviously, cannot alter the law, nor would it be appropriate to discuss an alteration of the law on the Motion for the Adjournment; so we are bound to abandon that aspect of the case in this discussion. My hon. Friend asks, "Is there nothing which the Home Secretary can do in the administrative sphere?" I have looked into this matter with the greatest care, because these are cases which excite natural sympathy. In addition to defining who are British subjects by birth, the Act deals with the subject of naturalisation. The law as to naturalisation is contained in Part II of the Act, and the important Sections for the purpose we are discussing to-day are Sections 2 and 5. When Parliament passed the principal Act in 1914, they showed great faith in the Home Secretary, because they gave to the Secretary of State a very wide discretion, in

these terms. Section 5, Sub-section (2) says:
The Secretary of State may, in his absolute discretion in any special case in which he thinks fit, grant a certificate of naturalisaton to any minor, whether or not the conditions required by this Act have been complied with.
That is a very wide discretion which rests in the Home Secretary, but if hon. Members will consider the terms of Section 2, they will see the snag in Section 5. Section 2, Sub-section (4) says:
A certificate of naturalisation shall not take effect until the applicant has taken the oath of allegiance.
That is to say, you obtain your certificate from the Home Secretary, but it is of no legal effect until you have taken the Oath of Allegiance. Hon. Members will at once see that it is very difficult for a child of tender years to take the Oath of Allegiance, because, in the eyes of the law, a child of tender years is not capable of understanding the nature of an oath or of having an oath administered to it.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: What is the earliest age at which it would be possible?

Mr. Peake: I am coming to that point. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, considered whether there is anything which he could possibly do in the administrative sphere to assist these children. I ought to say at this point that Regulations under the Act provide for the Oath of Allegiance being taken within a certain time of the issue of the certificate. Section 19 of the Act lays down that the Home Secretary may make Regulations with respect to the time within which the Oath of Allegiance has to be taken after the granting of a certificate of naturalisation, and the Regulations themselves prescribe that the Oath shall normally be taken within one month of the issue of the certificate, or, in special cases, during such longer period as the Home Secretary may direct.
It is clear that there is nothing which my right hon. Friend can do by any action upon his part which would have the effect of immediately conferring British nationality upon these children. But what my right hon. Friend can do, and what he is prepared to do in these wholly exceptional cases, is this. He is prepared, where the mother of the child is a British subject and is serving over-


seas in His Majesty's Forces at the time when the child is born, to issue a certificate of naturalisation, under Section 5, Sub-section (2). That certificate, it is true, will not be legally effective to confer British nationality upon the child until the child can itself take the Oath of Allegiance, but the child will be able to take the Oath of Allegiance before an age at which any disability would result through the absence of British citizenship.
The hon. Lady mentioned a number of points as regards which these children might be under a disability. It is clear that, if 16 was the age, then 16 is the age at which aliens have to be registered under the Aliens Act, and these children will, if they so desire, having obtained their certificates, be able to take the Oath of Allegiance before they reach the age of 16. Moreover, they will be able to take the Oath of Allegiance before they attain the age of 14, and the question of scholarships, which the hon. Lady raised, will be met in that way. I should not like at this stage, because this decision was only taken this afternoon, to say precisely at what age we shall be prepared to accept the swearing of the Oath by these children. It will be somewhere round about the ages of 12 to 14 years. That, I think, will meet any of the practical drawbacks from which these children would suffer as a result of their not having British nationality conferred upon them automatically at birth; and it will be an earnest of the intentions of the Home Office that we shall have given these children an absolute right, if they so desire, on attaining the years of discretion, when they understand the nature of an oath, of opting for, and obtaining, full British citizenship.

Miss Ward: I am very grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said, but there is this difficulty. When the certificate of naturalisation is immediately issued, will there be a sort of automatic register, so that when a child reaches the age at which it can take the Oath of Allegiance, the responsibility will be imposed upon the Home Office to try and find out the whereabouts of the child and its parent so that the attention of the parent can be drawn to the case?

Mr. Guy: After the issue of a certificate, will a child be regarded as a British subject from the

point of view, say, of competing for an educational scholarship?

Mr. Peake: It is clear that these children Will not be British subjects by virtue of holding the certificate until they have taken the Oath of Allegiance. In response to the hon. Lady's question, the alternative to what I have suggested—and I think I have gone a very long way towards satisfying her—would have been to say that we would not entertain an application for naturalisation until the age of 12 or 14 years. That might have had the great drawback that many of these children possibly will not, in 12 or 14 years' time, know the circumstances of their birth. They may not even realise that they do not possess British citizenship, but by this means—the method I have suggested—they will hold a document which will serve to remind them that they have a right to become British subjects, but that there is the further step, that of taking the Oath of Allegiance, upon which they will automatically become British citizens. We shall have their names registered at the Home Office, but we do not undertake to find the children in 14 years' time and send them a reminder. The issue of the document to them at this stage will be their earnest that they can obtain British citizenship on their own behalf.

Mr. Linstead: Would my right hon. Friend consider, in conjunction with the Service Departments, the possibility of the mother either being brought home to this country or being brought to some British territory before the birth of the child so that when the child is born difficulty might not arise at all?

Mr. Peake: I cannot answer for Service Departments. I believe that every precaution is taken to see that girls in a state of pregnancy do not go overseas, but, of course, accidents in this respect will happen. One or two of the solutions suggested to us in regard to this problem, I must say, seem to involve practical difficulties. One, was that the girls should be taken on to a British ship at the time of the birth of the child, and the other was that they should be conveyed to the British Embassy, but both of these seem to involve all sorts of practical considerations which would make it very difficult.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.